TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 54

On August 20 2013 08:53 packrat386 wrote:If that isn't enough I have plenty more authors to support my view.

On August 20 2013 08:35 micronesia wrote:

Can you explain when/how it was 'discredited'?


I think in order for someone to discuss this with you, you should tell us in what way are you skeptical that human behavior is responsible for measured changes in climate. IE: "Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle" or "CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes."

The fact that we started observing sudden, fast shifts in environmental levels shortly after the onset of the industrial evolution leads me to believe that we should be asking which aspects of our current model of climate change contributors are wrong or need to be adjusted, rather than if there was just some crazy coincidence. Please state your specific stance and why so we can respond to it.

On August 20 2013 09:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top -- 2011 book written by a woman who engaged in investigative journalism of the ICPP and the findings were staggering. $5 for the digital copy totally worth it.
We're talking about an increase from 390 parts per million (0.03%) to 600 parts per million (0.04%) increase of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere being the cause of a planetary meltdown. And the solution is going to be a carbon tax? Haha no I'm sorry but I don't think so. To me it sounds like fear mongering just like WMDs in Iraq and "terrorism" and look where that got us. Not to mention the IPCC who puts out the Climate Bible has been totally discredited in light of this recent investigative journalism.
Are you in favor of a carbon tax?

On August 20 2013 09:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
We're talking about an increase from 390 parts per million (0.03%) to 600 parts per million (0.04%) increase of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere being the cause of a planetary meltdown.

On August 19 2013 23:21 TricksAre4Figs wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

"In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise blows the lid off the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Instead of being a neutral body evaluating whether there has, in fact, been unprecedented global warming, the IPCC started with the premise that global warming was increasing at an alarming rate. Instead of investigating whether this warming was due to natural temperature cycles related to natural phenomena, human induced production of a trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, was the cause celebre from the beginning. Instead of convening the world's experts, Laframboise exposes many of the IPCC "scientists" as being young, un-degreed, sometimes unpublished fledglings! She shows abundant examples of true world experts, purposely avoided by the UN IPCC, because they disagreed with the anthropogenic global warming party line.
Surprisingly, instead of gathering scientists with no preconceived notions of climate change, Donna Laframbroise lays bare the high percentage of IPCC scientist who had been closely associated with and many times employed by the powerful and monied environmental activist groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, The Environmental Defense Fund, and others. Thus, these IPCC staff were following an agenda. They were "more activist than scientist!" She exposes The IPCC as a shoddy organization who didn't even follow what few rules it had, but portrayed itself as the indisputable oracle of impending climate disaster backed by the consensus of "thousands" of the world's most best scientists!
The Delinquent Teenager... is a fascinating unraveling of the world's most powerful voice for redistributing trillions of dollars in the name of the unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, a theory rapidly losing many of its early proponents.
If Donna Laframbroise hasn't put the final nail in the coffin of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I'll be surprised! "

Here's just one review of this journalistic expose of the IPCC. I think we all owe it to ourselves to read this book.

On August 19 2013 13:36 sluggaslamoo wrote:


It is called global warming because the global mean surface temperature is increasing. This has been verified by thousands of temperature stations around the world.

However the repercussions of this is predicted to be bigger differences in climate, causing climate change. Scientists believe that the recent changes in climate further strengthen this argument.

So in actual fact both is happening, but both terms refer to different phenomenon.

The irony in your suggestion and many others who have made similar statements is that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is much much easier to prove, while anthropogenic climate change is much harder to prove and can never be a 100% conclusive link despite all the evidence.

The funniest part about the whole debate is that sceptics are trying to refute the global warming argument rather than the climate change argument. Just look at all the retarded "global cooling" graphs, and nonsensical reasons to global warming articles. I have yet to see one on climate change.

Refuting global warming is like trying to tell people that gravity no longer exists. You can't fake the stats of 10,000 temperature stations around the globe pumping out gigabytes of data, not even viable for a conspiracy theorist, especially when you can just get the data manually yourself.

The models (http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings) clearly indicate the earth is warming, and if you tie that to the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere over the same timespan you'd have to brainwash yourself into thinking that there was no correlation. Unless you are so retarded at seeing correlations, that if someone gave you a children's toy, you'd still try to fit the square block into the circle hole.

Any 12 year old could link the increases in global mean temperature with CO2 emissions as a school science project. Both graphs look almost identical, just the temperature increase is lagged by a few years and both are pretty much flat prior to mass manufacturing.

If sceptics were smart, they would try to refute climate change, not global warming. The fact that they don't means that there is obviously a hidden agenda.

On August 20 2013 09:08 TricksAre4Figs wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top -- 2011 book written by a woman who engaged in investigative journalism of the ICPP and the findings were staggering. $5 for the digital copy totally worth it.
We're talking about an increase from 390 parts per million (0.03%) to 600 parts per million (0.04%) increase of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere being the cause of a planetary meltdown. And the solution is going to be a carbon tax? Haha no I'm sorry but I don't think so. To me it sounds like fear mongering just like WMDs in Iraq and "terrorism" and look where that got us. Not to mention the IPCC who puts out the Climate Bible has been totally discredited in light of this recent investigative journalism.
Are you in favor of a carbon tax?

On August 20 2013 06:51 Darkwhite wrote:


The problem is that climate science neither has nor deserves the same level of trust as physics. Climate science is largely in the business of making poorly based claims about the far future while consistently having their models contradicted by the short term developments. Climate science should be lumped with economics and psychology, other fields which similarly apply naive models to much too complicated systems and pretend they have the scientific rigor of a natural science.

On August 20 2013 13:00 radscorpion9 wrote:




As Gringo pointed out, most climate scientists are actually trained physicists. If their field really was so complicated, that they couldn't make accurate predictions and that the models all made "embarrassingly" poor predictions as you write, then why is there such a strong, nearly unanimous consensus that human beings are causing global warming? Why is there the same near-unanimous agreement on the degree and range of consequences that will occur as a result?

They wouldn't make statements of such clear certainty if they didn't know, or if the models were so poor. Maybe you're right though, maybe they're *all* deceiving themselves or lying to the public for some hidden agenda.

On August 20 2013 15:05 Darkwhite wrote:


Climate science automatically attracts people who believe that the climate is greatly affected by human activities. Making a career out of trying to show effects of paramount importance makes much more sense than devoting decades of study to disprove something you find questionable. It is hardly surprising that most climate scientists are positive to idea of human activities affecting the climate. You will similarly find that most astrologers believe that constellations affect people's destinies. Consensus, by itself, means very little.

A fine example of scientific consensus gone wrong is given below. It details how a very influential priming experiment, which has been cited thousands of times in psychology papers, has probably been a false positive all along. Note that this is a very simple and straightforward experiment, which can be replicated on a budget of less than ten thousand dollars, and the original paper is from 1996.
http://chronicle.com/article/Power-of-Suggestion/136907/

Plenty of scientists in all fields - particularly the ones who make headlines in the media - make very bold claims with very dubious evidence. The only vaccine against false prophets is continuous and rigorous experimental verification, which is precisely the thing which is nearly impossible in climate science. The only way to test the accuracy of your models is to wait for the years to tick by. Historically, the short-term accuracy has been terrible, which leaves very little credibility for the long term projections.

I won't bother replying to or quoting the last half of your post, which is desperately arguing against claims I have never made. My position is simply to regard climate science with the same sort of moderate skepticism as economics and psychology. All these sciences generally deal with much more complicated systems than physics and cannot test their models with the same relative ease, and also have much less stellar credentials.

On August 20 2013 15:05 Darkwhite wrote:


Climate science automatically attracts people who believe that the climate is greatly affected by human activities. Making a career out of trying to show effects of paramount importance makes much more sense than devoting decades of study to disprove something you find questionable. It is hardly surprising that most climate scientists are positive to idea of human activities affecting the climate. You will similarly find that most astrologers believe that constellations affect people's destinies. Consensus, by itself, means very little.

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

[...]

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

On August 21 2013 00:35 BillGates wrote:
There is no denial. Its not like claiming the sky is yellow, man made global warming is a scam meant to bankrupt the countries of the west by destroying small and medium sized businesses and only the large corporations being exempt and allowed to operate.

To achieve this scam they are using the natural, minor warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years to scare everybody into basically becoming serfs to the large corporations who are exempt from the carbon taxes and carbon trading scams, while you are restricted and propagandized into only taking showers once a week and to think its bad to have a hot shower and hot water running.

While Al-Gore, the Rothschilds family who own the carbon trading centers have giant yachts, over 20 mansions all over the world with each of them having at least 20 bedrooms, giant private planes, helicopters, own racing tracks, etc... and release 1000x the normal carbon dioxide an average family does in a full year.

On August 21 2013 00:35 BillGates wrote:
minor warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years

On August 21 2013 01:14 micronesia wrote:

Why do you think this is minor? How many degrees of increase needs to happen before it isn't minor? I think it's better to discuss the science of global warming and climate change models than to discuss possible motivations for major conspiracies.

On August 21 2013 01:57 BillGates wrote:


Because we've had 2 degrees Celsius bigger warming in the medieval period and there were no cars or whatever back then, unless you believe people having fire to keep warm in the winter was the equivalent of today cars? And the desert's were lush forests and there was abundance of food in what was a gold period of humanity.

The temperature on the earth has always changed, it will continuously change forever no matter of what we humans do.

So a 0.6 degree natural increase in the temperatures is not enough to give up all our rights and allow the major corporations to put carbon taxes and set up carbon trading schemes like they have already started to do.

The carbon exchanges are owned by Al-Gore and the Rothschilds family, in fact Al-Gore and Barack Hussein Obama own the major shares in the Chicago carbon exchange, while the Rothschilds family owns the ones in Australia and London.

So I'm not denying that temperature changes, in fact I'm putting exclamation marks on it, screaming and yelling that this is exactly the case and paying carbon taxes to Al-Gore has nothing to do with it.

On August 21 2013 01:57 BillGates wrote:


Because we've had 2 degrees Celsius bigger warming in the medieval period and there were no cars or whatever back then, unless you believe people having fire to keep warm in the winter was the equivalent of today cars? And the desert's were lush forests and there was abundance of food in what was a gold period of humanity.

The temperature on the earth has always changed, it will continuously change forever no matter of what we humans do.

So a 0.6 degree natural increase in the temperatures is not enough