| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
From the topical article,a nd the first thing that crossed my mind... Of course the whole Climate 101 CO2 experiment is questionable to begin with, because it doesn’t properly emulate the physical mechanisms involved in heating our planet. Note the heat lamps used, likely one of these based on the red color we see in the lamp fixture: Nothing but pure deception to fool people. Even if true, the demonstration is completely and absolutely bogus concerning climate change. One other problem not mentioned is that the output from a heat lamp is far from constant across the illuminated area. the sun is about the only source for such a reliably homogenous source of light and heat. Liars suck. Al Gore is a proven pathological liar and world class hypocrite who is heavily invested in the CO2 cap and trade carbon market. Wise up believers; you've been deceived. For the past two years, sea level has declined. The next ten years will fully reveal the lie of anthropogenic global warming. | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, that's the really funny thing about the whole video. They don't understand the science well enough to use correct materials for the experiment. With the chosen materials BOTH jars get heated and you wont even get the desired scary effect, so they had to completely fake it. Even if you designed this experiment correctly the results are not in any way indicative of what happens in the real world where water vapor rules. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Wise up believers; you've been deceived. << Slaughter was right. | ||
| Fahren |
Guys, I can't do this. All I hope is that all you who follow the news on this, read reports, listen to politicians speak about it understand that there is a huge machine with a money-making agenda behind the news, the reports and the politicians. When you see a spokesperson on Fox, an expert, speak out about climate change, or speak out against regulation on pollution, please at least be aware of who funded that expert's work, and think about why. Think about the agenda. Example: the Cato Foundation. I don't like hearing about scientists who may be willing to push a pro-climate change agenda just to secure funding, either. On either side, it's bad science, manipulated for political and economic gain, and that's wrong. The point I was trying to make initially here is more along the lines of what Davegess noted: not so much the causes, but what to do. Should we keep out heads in the sand? Should we just go along depleting our planet's resources until eventually they are gone, or as good as gone? I don't to argue about if, or exactly when. It's undeniable that it will happen at some point, so we should be working on development of technologies that will ease the transition and hopefully pollute the planet less. Are those bad goals? Can you agree with me that those are worthy pursuits? And isn't the development of new alternate energy sources that would pollute our land and water less, and make us independent from foreign oil sources forever a great idea for our national security and for the long-term preservation of our domestic food and water supplies? I'm not arguing about polar bears or Al Gore here. I'm arguing that huge petro-chemical interests are fighting tooth and nail for our hearts and minds, to sway our opinions and beliefs for us to agree with them that moving out in these new directions is not worth doing, that it's a bad idea, that it won't work, that it's not needed. I think it is needed. I think it would be a good idea for a lot of reasons that have no connection to Al and the polar bears. This I believe. | ||
| Sifo |
Fahren, Have you ever watched Fox News? Your constant berating of them makes me think you haven't. Most of what I hear from Fox News regarding global warming is right in line with the rest of the MSM i.e., it follows what is fed to them by folks like Al Gore or James Hansen. Then when you trot out a website that is conspiracy theory central playing a game of six degrees of separation, I just have to laugh. Laugh if you want about Watts Up With That, but it's one of the top award winning science blogs out there. This criticism of Al Gore is one of their lighter subjects. The also get into some pretty good science (as if pointing out politicians pushing bad science isn't good science). Still if you want to understand the issues, a blog like this is just the tip of the iceberg. They raise good issues and have some interesting discussions, but you need to read far more in depth materials. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Having been on academic and "big industry" sides of the table, I have to say both are highly biased. The problem here is that the global warming group has made it a religion. There is always a bit of dogma in science, that's how you reach a hypothesis, but the anthropogenic global warming crowd has *really* jumped the shark. I think the real problem is that the media and government can keep big business more honest, but big business can't keep the media and government honest (mainly because the media has aligned itself with the government). Sounds like you are a nuclear power supporter Faren... Welcome to the fold! (If you aren't yet, go do the heavy lifting with math, minimum necessary consumption, populations, and available resources. If you do this you will be stuck either being a support of nuclear power, or massive (like 90%) population reduction (ouch)). | ||
| Hootowl |
I absolutely agree with your logic there Faren. We need to develop other sources of energy. What I disagree with is the way the government is going about it. The technology will mature when there is a real market for it. Right now, coal and gas are cheap and plentiful, and even at $100 a barrel, oil is a bargain considering the benefit it provides. Why drive the economy into the ground in pursuit of more expensive energy sources? When those resources become as expensive as the alternative, the alternatives will flourish. The greens know this, which is (one reason) why they want to tax CO2 emissions. They want to make it artificially more expensive. They want tax credits for green energy to make it artificially less expensive. I say let the market determine what the best source of energy is. That takes the politics out of the picture completely. No Soros/Gore influence, no Coch brothers influence. Though from what I've seen the conservative activists are simply trying to get the greens to leave the rest of us alone and expose their shoddy scientific conclusions. Sorry, consensus, not conclusions. | ||
| Sifo |
One of the problems with the media (print, radio or TV) is that crisis sells. "All is well" is just plain boring. 98% of the people out there never hear anything but the sky is falling crowd because of this. Science just isn't very exciting to watch. In fact it's very tedious. The ones that say "does it matter that the science is bad, it's still a good idea" just scare me though. Hoping for good results from following bad science is just plain foolish. Wanting to spend tens of trillions of dollars following bad science is beyond description. This only happens when you have a political motive that some scientists are willing to follow to ensure continued funding. +1 on the nukes! That's a realistic part of the solution that comes from real science. | ||
| Blake |
When people discussing actual science are characterized as " burrying their head in the sand" while the opposition resorts to lies, personal attack, fraud, everything but credible science; when the lead proponent is a proven liar, hypocrite, and banking on CO2 cap and trade, sorry. If you don't have credible applicable science too offer then, my analysis screams "FRAUD"! "Hide the decline" fraud, sea levels falling, the proven lies and fraud in Gore's film, the history of earth's climate, the major problems with tree ring analysis (rainfall is as significant if not more significant a factor for tree growth than temperature), The objections to the claims of impending doom by thousands of reputable scientists, and finally the unquestioned assumption that a warmer climate is catastrophic or even on balance a problem for humans on earth, all are 100% valid points that deserve consideration. Seems to me Fahren that those who refuse to discuss the science and confront the evidence scientifically are the ones with their head burried somewhere. Who has a record of the most heinous corruption and crimes against humanity, oil concerns or socialist totalitarianism? The VAST amounts of funding provided the warmists, dwarfs that of the oil concerns. Yes, let the oil be depleted! As supply diminishes, the price will increase, and other forms of energy will become viable economically. Let the free market work! Seek truth. | ||
| Sifo |
the major problems with tree ring analysis (rainfall is as significant if not more significant a factor for tree growth than temperature) That's the least of the problems with tree ring analysis. Mann's hockey stick graph that was so readily accepted as fact relied heavily on data gathered from a study that was showing tree growth to be connected with "aerial fertilization" of CO2. That study specifically stated that the data collected was not good data for temperature study. Sadly this was probably some of the better science that went into Mann's study. Mann is still fighting against releasing all the details of his study even though it was all paid for with out tax dollars. Hiding the details of how you reach your conclusion is not science folks. (Message edited by SIFO on September 29, 2011) | ||
| Fahren |
Hootowl, I can think of all sorts of ways the government is going about things the wrong way. My only problem with laissez-faire "let the market decide" is that the US's, and global demand for energy is going up as population and development goes up, all the while the available supply of natural energy resources we extract from the planet is decreasing. I would like to see more emphasis earlier than at the tipping point where those graph lines cross, just because it would be nice to have a smoother transition, not to have to operate in crisis mode. When it comes to energy resources, operation in crisis mode usually means social unrest and war(s). It seems worthwhile to try to avoid these conditions, but, considering past performance of our species, well.... maybe Winston Churchill said it best: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." (Message edited by fahren on September 29, 2011) | ||
| Buellkowski |
Here's an interesting article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010 /07/happy-35th-birthday-global-warming/ Politics are biased, no doubt, no argument. But can the science be condemned as biased if it occurred before Al Gore? | ||
| Hootowl |
Sure, but oil, coal, and gas aren't going to suddenly become unavailable. We know what we have. We know what's available. The US has 400 years of coal resources at current consumption rates. Even given a massive increase in demand, that's a lot of coal for a long time. I think it is a bit too soon to be sounding the alarm that we're running out of energy. There's plenty of time to figure things out, and without starving half the world with our morbid fascination with crop based fuels. | ||
| Sifo |
Bad science has a very long history. | ||
| Hootowl |
Al Gore didn't invent global warming, but he sure took the ball and ran with it. One of his professors got him engaged as a young, not terribly bright student. That professor has since changed his position, but Gore won't listen. He's already too invested in it. Frankly, I think losing the election damaged his mind in a very real way. He hasn't been the same since. | ||
| Strokizator |
There have been times in the earth's history when the climate has been warmer than it is now. Other times it has been colder. What evidence can anyone produce that shows the current temperature is the perfect or correct one? And it's no longer "global warming". That's been changed to "climate change" so they can control both sides of the equation, both warming and cooling. Where's the 50 million climate refugees that were predicted 10 years ago? | ||
| Sifo |
What evidence can anyone produce that shows the current temperature is the perfect or correct one? That's one hell of a kicker question, isn't it. The reality is that the Medieval Warm Period was a period of relative well being. Crops did well. Vikings settled in Greenland. Life for humans thrived. The Little Ice Age... not so much. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Where's the 50 million climate refugees that were predicted 10 years ago?" They're in Africa. They're starving because the greens have driven up the worldwide cost of grain with their bio fuel fetish. | ||
| Sifo |
Where's the 50 million climate refugees that were predicted 10 years ago? The UN "disapeared" them. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/27/the-un-disap pears-yet-another-inconvenient-claim-and-once-agai n-botches-the-cover-up/ | ||
| Blake |
Fahren, Your premise is false. There is no impending crisis. What you see with the price of energy and all kinds ofnnew technology is the free marketnin action, and if left alone it will indeed provide the optimum solution with as litte discomfort as possible. It sure beats starving half the world as our government subsidizes fuel crops over food. THAT is a real catastrophe that we can point to and learn from. Next would be Solyndra. Next the Chevy Volt. Can you imagine the effect on America's oil consumption in ten or twenty years when most of the city-driving vehicles are hybrids achieving better than double the fuel mileage of even the most fuel efficient conventional predecessors? But you are now shifting the debate to something other than global warming. Fine, cool, it's a great issue to discuss, but let's not use it to try to excuse the fraud and lies of the warmists. As energy prices rise, consumption diminishes and alternative sources become viable. Nuclear, solar, hybrid, electric vehicles (plug-in) hybrids and all electrics, heck even mass transit. You know what else happens as travel and shipping become mor expensive? People start to live closer to where they work and goods are produced closer to where they are sold. Government interference in an open and competitive (no monopolies) free market is ALWAYS big trouble. See the mortgage crisis and ensuing global economic crisis. Now if you want to talk about OPEC being an illegal consortium, I'm with you. Ditching oil for national security is the best argument for some gov't intervention. How about we produce more here? Alaska, deep water, both coasts, massive jobs demand as a result. Natural gas for running trucks and trains? | ||
| Sifo |
For anyone that want to get up to speed on the basics of the science, here's a good link that explains it pretty well in layman's terms. It give great perspective on man's contribution to global warming. WARNING: Science content. May not be suitable for some ideologues. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html Discuss??? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Bad science has a very long history. Ask Court what he thinks about Wally Broecker and his "bad science." Now Google "Monte Hieb."  (Message edited by buellkowski on September 29, 2011) | ||
| Fahren |
How far up the food chain in journalistic sources does one need to go? I am criticized for my sources, but then the laughable Anthony Watts (with his disproved idea that many poorly placed weather stations have skewed the data) comes up!!! Please. Seek the truth indeed. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/cli mate_change http://www.economist.com/node/15719298?story_id=15 719298 | ||
| Sifo |
Is there something in the link you disagree with? Other than Monte Hieb that is. No doubt he's been called the devil for pointing out certain facts. | ||
| Hootowl |
That's a pretty small window of time to view average temperatures. Zoom out and you'll see it is well within the norm. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.ht ml | ||
| Sifo |
Fahren, Please explain how Watts was discredited? All I see are op-ed pieces. Probably better than conspiracy central, but still, I'd like to see some data. BTW, Watts is simply attempting to point out the number of temperature stations that don't meet the standards that they are supposed to. They aren't even his standards. He is also looking at what we would expect to be the best stations in the world, the US stations. It's very likely that other parts of the world are in far worse shape. I haven't read the abstract from the paper that he submitted (His site says it's been accepted, but not published yet), but I'm not sure that you accurately describe what the paper is about. Great to know that it's discredited before getting published though. That saves a lot of reading.  | ||
| Reepicheep |
Fahren... can you provide a link to the report that discredited the data Watts gathered? All I can find is congressional testimony saying "we were given some of Watts data that we agreed not to share because Watts was still working on publishing it, and we did stuff to it that we wont give you any details about, and so far it suggests Watts was wrong, but we know for a fact that the stuff we did that we won't tell you about has plenty of uncertainty that we haven't yet figured out yet and that we know could completely change our conclusions." Then they say "and we will publish the details in a peer reviewed journal really soon". That was a while ago, and I can't find it published. All I can find is a report from the Huffington post making assertions about he strength of the report that the preliminary authors directly contradict in their congressional testimony. It's kind of a moot point anyway, as the question isn't "was there a warming trend", it was "what degree do CO2 emissions contribute to a warming trend that predated use of fossil fuels by tens of thousands of year". You went out of your way to state Watts was discredited though... I like to review the documents that did it, and understand where Watts (who entered the field as an AGW believer and changed his mind based on facts he was observing) got it wrong. | ||
| Reepicheep |
(dang! Sifo beat me!  ) | ||
| Sifo |
One more thing. Fahrens first Economist link seems to claim the Koch brothers funded the Surface Stations study. Surface Stations clearly claim to be unfunded.
http://www.surfacestations.org/Fall_etal_2011/fall _etal_media_resource_may08.pdf I'm sure he is spot with everything else though. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Is there something in the link you disagree with? Yes, indeed. Hieb's report is woefully incomplete, IMO. Water vapor's role in contributing to the "greenhouse effect" is held up as a massive, natural, and unavoidable environmental factor, dwarfing global CO2's "contribution". What he doesn't address is the systemic role that elevated CO2 levels play in subsequent elevation in atmospheric water vapor levels, or in other enviornmental factors. In fact, he notably adds this disclaimer: "Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use." Here's how Hieb's report reads to me: Q: "Why did the airplane crash?" HIEB: "The wings fell off. An airplane can't fly without wings. They're one of the major components of an airplane. All other parts of the airplane are miniscule in comparison." In a "system", changes in even the smallest components can lead to a disaster. Dr. Broecker is eminently more qualified to report on the science of geophysics and geochemistry. The link I posted shows that he predicted the effect of elevated CO2 levels on the global environment. In Science, a peer-reviewed publication! In 1975! |
