Page 97 of 111 FirstFirst ... 47879293949596979899100101102107 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,940 of 2209
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1921  
    Hello Everyone,

    I've noticed a dependency of Global Warming Alarmists to "conflate" (a popular word around here recently) various things as a tactic. Let me discuss that for a bit.

    Basically this tactic is to attempt to push the theory that "Climate Change"--the term they use in their propaganda to sway people who notice that things are decidedly colder where they live (in many cases at least), is due to CO2 levels in the Atmosphere. That's step one. Temperature Readings indicate that in fact there are warmer temperatures--in the 90s for example.

    This tangents right into another issue--the claim of AWG alarmists is that CO2 is THE primary reason--not merely one contributing factor. There is something to "Greenhouse effects" of certain compounds--CO2 being one of them (Water being a more significant one). These alarmists depend on pushing this theory as fact.

    To review--CO2 as the Major contributor to global temperatures is is a theory. While it is true that temperatures were elevated (and are likely to have warm years again), the claim regarding the cause is theoretical. Global Warming Alarmists MUST have you believe that this is a certainty, not just a theory.

    The claim is that mankind's behavior is responsible for CO2 levels in the atmosphere. While we do literally produce CO2 by living, burning fossil fuels, etc, AGW alarmists would have you believe that we are the primary cause of this, when in reality, our contribution is only one part of CO2 in the atmosphere. The AGW alarmist MUST have you believe that not only are we responsible, but that we can control these levels, and thereby control the global temperature.

    So, here's how this works. AGW alarmists try to push this all as one single fact--specifically, Global Warming is caused by CO2 which is caused by human action. That's a theoretical claim, not a scientific fact. The best they can scientifically claim is that Global Temperatures have been high in the recent past. They have made great efforts to link CO2 Concentrations to Global Temperature, but temperature deviates very significantly from CO2 Concentrations on a yearly and even decade long basis. Obviously, the connection is not nearly as direct as they would have you believe. It is obvious to any objective person that other factors MUST come into play.

    If the theory that Global Temperatures are directly affected by CO2 Concentrations is true, it is overwhelmed by other factors, which obviously includes the Sun and solar activity (and may include many others that have not been quantified). Let's stop for a moment and understand this. Factors other than CO2 can cause very significant changes in temperature, very quickly, but also for longer periods.

    What this tells ANY honest observer is that CO2 is not in fact the most important factor, because it demonstrably is overwhelmed. Now, if you bring this up, the AGW alarmists will default back to their mashed up, muddled position--claiming that it is undeniable that there has been a general warming trend. This is an attempt to side-step the facts, and fool you into thinking that this means all of their claims are correct. They aren't--they are merely unproven theories.

    Understanding and acknowledging that Global Temperatures change (including rise) is not the same as proving AGW alarmist theory--far from it, but they are DEPENDING on conflating these issues in order to promote their agenda, which they promise will fix things--in other words control the global temperatures and "save the planet."

    Now, I'm sure some people will throw a hissy fit about this, but that's ok--its what they do. When you understand these things and how they relate (which I'm sure many out there already do), you will understand that the propaganda push is what it is--politics, and not scientific fact.

    The fact that AGW alarmists rely on this sort of distortion to push their agenda is in itself telling. That they demand that people with opposing views be silenced or marginalized is another red flag. Declarations that "the debate is over" and "the science is settled" are on one hand laughable, but on the other EXTREMELY dangerous. They also exhibit the desperate nature of the people who push such propaganda.

    This is not an attempt to present scientific evidence, not an attempt to describe the goals behind this. It is an attempt to explain the propagandist position and tactics used to promote AGW alarmism. This doesn't speak to the scientific issues, credibility of the Data, analysis methods, etc (all of which are important and even more damaging to the AGW alarmist claims--and which I encourage everyone to learn more about), but even without this it tells us a lot about the nature of this political movement.

    KAM
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1922  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Unfortunately, those who are against climate change, healthcare reform, fixing the economy thorugh government spending, etc. always just claim that "facts" are questionable.

    Favorites excuses: the source of the study is liberal so it is biased; There are factors that weren't studied; The time interval is too short; the number of people isn't enough; they studied the wrong people; blah, blah, blah. Nothing showing proof will be good enough for you. It's a simple ploy used over and over again.

    But when one of a thousand studies comes out saying something even mildly contradictory, you all sure hang on to that baby for dear life!

    Climatologists are pretty much in agreement--they devote their lives to this stuff.
    First off, regarding your first "favorite excuse" listed above: I've noted you shooting down data presenting by conservative sources. That tactic is well used by both sides. Nothing that ever falls out of Rush's mouth is true or worthy of debate, right?

    Secondly, finding out that the entire model that was the basis of your "proof" that mankind is responsible for global warming was flawed and falsified, isn't a "mildly contradictory" finding.

    Third, let's put this "concensus science" thing to bed. There is no such thing. This includes phrases like "pretty much in agreement". What does that even mean?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1923  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If you have already determined that somehow unequivocally "the entire model that was the basis of your "proof" that mankind is responsible for global warming was flawed and falsified," is it really worth debating anything with you?
    You're right. I'm pretty much done with debating, personally. It's pretty clear that it's unproven still, and certainly not something we should be selling our children's future down the river for.
    If you are looking for facts, why don't you actually read the emails from the global warming scientists--nothing disproves the model, even the scientists are absolutely convinced of it. But facts aren't that interesting to you--you're happy pretending that those emails somehow refute everything.
    Emails? Who is talking about emails? I'm talking about the code that describes the model. The emails simply pointed to the fudged code. Let me spell it out. They couldn't make the model show what they wanted, so they modified the code to "spin" the model is such a way that the "data" would support their objectives. It's ridiculous that you're still trying to hold on to thier data as something that's agreeable, much less plausible or even remotely based in facts.
    I'm still waiting for the emails from the big oil companies supporting mis-information about climate change. When they are revealed, you'll come up with reasons why those emails don't represent all the AGW thought...so predictable.

    As for consensus science, is there ANYTHING that absolutely everyone is in agreement with? ANYTHING? All I can say, is I'll believe the climatologists over..well, you on the topic of climate change.
    I didn't single out "climatologists". And I've never said that the earth wasn't warming.
    I could just as easily state that your entire model of the earth being round is falsified--the earth is flat! The Flat Earth Society -- Home
    Now you're being silly!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1924  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    ..and somehow these few scientists at a research center represent all the world in global warming to you?

    That's called picking out the "fact" you are desperate to believe.
    Harr. Nice try. It's amazing how the left went gah gah over Watergate, and simply want to brush Climategate under the rug as "nothing to see here folks... move along... just some whacko rightwing teabaggers... move along"
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #1926  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The ones that have gotten the most news coverage include Kivalina in Alaska, Indonesian islands, and Maldives in the Indian Ocean. The Maldives is trying to find a place to relocate all its residents as sea levels are predicted to overtake the lands soon.
    Nice list. I would google them for populations an substantiating acts but it is late an I am tired. You seem to know lots about them so you tell us. How many people are we talking.
    As to the "prediction" how high is the water predicted to rise? and when? and let's see the data shall we?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6. #1927  
    zelgo, question for you.Do you drive a car? if yes what kind?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1928  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Why do the AGW folks just assume that "theory" in the scientific sense equals "theory" is the everyday usage sense? "Evolution is a Theory so it's not definitely true!"

    To be elevated to a scientific theory, you have to have loads of evidence. It's still the "Theory of Gravity" afterall. Science doesn't really call anything a "fact" in the layman's sense.
    PREDICTIONS of Global Warming Alarmists are not in the same category as Gravity. However, that is the lie that AGWers perpetuate.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    For Climate Change, there is a direct correlation with the increase of CO2 and the increase in temperatures. Although there have, over the last few thousand years, a cyclical nature to CO2 and temperatures, since the industrial revolution the CO2 has risen almost exponentially, way past previous cycles, right along with the temperatures--this decade being the hottest in recorded history. It's this correlation that remains so compelling.
    Well, given that this "correlation" is so "direct" then how would you explain the fact that temperatures break from that very starkly, despite continued steady rises in CO2 Concentrations. This has happened at various times for relatively long periods of time.

    What this tells us is that other factors override whatever effect there is from CO2. That's not a prediction--its a fact--a very relevant fact that AGW alarmists want to sidestep.

    The "direct" correlation you speak of isn't there--temperature deviates from it (as it is currently). Temperatures are bouncing around all over the place while CO2 is rising steadily. OTHER FACTORS override CO2, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    It's called climate change because, well, climates change. Certain areas get colder, while other get hotter--with the ultimate direction being hotter and hotter.
    No, its called Climate change, because YOUR fear mongers can't sell Global Warming while people are freezing their butts off.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    People trying to refute climate change use the age-old tactic of confusing and scaring the public because of the difference of terminology. This is right up there with Obamacare will kill your grandma early and death panels.
    AMAZING how you somehow call those against AGW as fear mongers, while they are telling school children how the world will end. I'm amazed you can say that with a "Straight face" as it were. So ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    We've heard all this mis-information before--all because companies making money off the status quo will do anything not to lose money.
    We've heard a lot of idiotic accusations of "conspiracy theory" yet here you are--saying that Businesses are willing to literally destroy the planet to make a few bucks. Yeah, who has the crazy ideas?

    Misinformation...really? The people desperately trying to have their voices heard amongst those with dedicated efforts to silence and intimidate them are spreading misinformation? Please.

    I'm not making money off of the "status quo" and in fact--I'd make money if Windmills took off. So...that's DOA.

    Climate change certainly is occurring, and it always has and always will. The lie that you depend on is that we can change this, or have changed this. When in fact, the FACTS support the idea that Climate is and has been overriding our contribution to CO2 in the Atmosphere. Convincing people that this DEMONSTRABLE FACT is not true is of course the goal that AGW alarmists must achieve in order to push the agenda they demand--which will continue to waste money on their "research" and other various economy wrecking policies.

    Global Temperatures do not follow CO2 Concentrations--they regularly deviate from it. So, that THEORY is proven false. Global Temperatures on a general upward trend is a fact, but Predictions that it will continue are not anything close to fact, and that's the lie that AGW proponents need to make seem true.

    Their analysis has already been proven wrong--even in the short term. Their computer models are WRONG. Given that they cannot even properly predict short term temperatures, and that the range of temperatures they are predicting is very small, it is impossible to state with any certainty that long term predictions are correct. Anyone who tells you that they ARE certain or even credible is lying.

    So, back to where we started. AGW alarmists are making Predictions--based on information that has in some cases been intentionally manipulated, and with analysis methods that are not up to the task, and have already proven themselves inaccurate--even in the short term.

    You are perpetuating a *******ization of science, which is rooted 100% in politics, and FEAR MONGERING with the threat of world destruction (doesn't get bigger than that) as your primary tool.

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1929  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Unfortunately, those who are against climate change, healthcare reform, fixing the economy thorugh government spending, etc. always just claim that "facts" are questionable.
    Oh yes, God FORBID that anyone question "facts."

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Favorites excuses: the source of the study is liberal so it is biased; There are factors that weren't studied; The time interval is too short; the number of people isn't enough; they studied the wrong people; blah, blah, blah. Nothing showing proof will be good enough for you. It's a simple ploy used over and over again.
    Well, actually, science isn't propaganda and any and all of those reasons are valid...potentially and need proper analysis to prove or disprove them. But you aren't interested in science of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    But when one of a thousand studies comes out saying something even mildly contradictory, you all sure hang on to that baby for dear life!
    Of course that is a false characterization. Additionally--if you understood science ONE contradictory bit of evidence DOES disprove a theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Climatologists are pretty much in agreement--they devote their lives to this stuff.
    Actually, there isn't nearly the universal agreement you state, sweeping attempts have been made to silence those who do not agree, and you pretty much peg the reason why these people cling so desperately to flawed science--they have devoted their lives to it. How readily do you think someone is going to burn their meal ticket?

    This Global Warming hysteria is built on so many falsehoods and half-truths, that it really cannot tolerate ANY reasonable level of scrutiny, and AGW advocates will go to any length to avoid this--which is why they persist with propaganda campaigns, and attempt to silence anyone who threatens their position--especially those with hard facts.

    You are simply parroting their propaganda, but for many people--that veil is off. I know that AGW alarmists are thinking they can just keep pushing and intimidate people into buying into their schemes--if they just keep the din up loud enough and threaten destruction of the planet, they will get their way. But that genie is out of the bottle, and Science can't be lied about forever.

    KAM
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1930  
    Awesome post. I like the recap:

    What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
    Thanks for the article, groovy!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #1931  
    So does this article mean there is over population on mars as well?

    Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

    Forgot to add pluto http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html
    article from 2002 before global warming was a big issue.

    Lets not also forget the "next ice age" is coming scare tactics from i thing the late 70's early 80's (not sure when but i was a kid)
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1932  
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobdude View Post
    So does this article mean there is over population on mars as well?

    Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
    Ignore the Solar Activity behind the Curtain--it has nothing to do with Global Warming. Don't even consider it, talk about it, think about it. Just remain silent.

    Didn't you hear--CONSENSUS has been reached, there is no room for anything else. They are spending a lot of money in Denmark talking about it--how could so many be so wrong? It's not possible. Conventional wisdom is ALWAYS correct.

    Crud--the needle on the sarcasm meter just broke!
    KAM
  12. #1933  
    "The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration."

    Exaggeration = Fear = Power = Money
  13. #1934  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo
    The ones that have gotten the most news coverage include Kivalina in Alaska, Indonesian islands, and Maldives in the Indian Ocean. The Maldives is trying to find a place to relocate all its residents as sea levels are predicted to overtake the lands soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by woof
    Nice list. I would google them for populations an substantiating acts but it is late an I am tired. You seem to know lots about them so you tell us. How many people are we talking.
    As to the "prediction" how high is the water predicted to rise? and when? and let's see the data shall we?
    Well where's my answer? Hurry before all the people on the islands drown!!
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #1935  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Typical. First you demand the list of islands that are in trouble--as if that's a lie. When the list is easily presented, you want me to present other specifics.

    That makes it clear you haven't done any research on this matter before you feel free comment all about it.
    Yes typical. Typical that YOU can't provide any facts. YOU are claiming that some island somewhere is going to disappear. I don't have to disprove your statement, YOU have to prove its validity. If as YOU claim it's happening it should be pretty easy for you to show that. I think your claim is BS and I dont have to prove anything, I just have to point at the pile and say it stinks.

    Here's a little science for you. Take a glass and fill it with ice cubes. Then add water until the water is 1/4 inch from the top of the glass. Let it sit until the ice melts. How much water spills over the top of the glass?
    Now consider how much ice would have to melt in order to raise the oceans 1 foot. How much ice is there on the planet? How much ocean? How long will it take to melt enough ice to raise the ocean one inch?
    Call us when your house is flooded.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #1936  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Funny how you ignore all the independent climatologists whose work points to manmade global warming on earth. The second there is one comment about heating on Mars, you jump all over it like it proves something. You parade that "proof" around like it completely debunks everything that has been said about climate change on earth.

    Then you find out something like Mars goes through melting and freezing cycles because of its path around the sun--something that earth, because of its distance, is spared from. You suddenly drop that study and move on to another.

    "The Earth has been cooling over the last few years, not heating!" Then, again you parade that around only to find out that , although the earth has cooled since its hottest in 1998, the last few years have still been among the hottest on record. As predicted, you drop that one "proof" and merrily move along to the next.

    And on and on and on....so predictable.
    So lets see, what you are trying to say is your are right and I am wrong? At least provide a link. I did.

    Or maybe you can actually explain how the earth does not have these same "cycles" as well? Maybe its the sun as mentioned here:Sun's Cycle Alters Earth's Climate | LiveScience

    or maybe you can also point out how you ignore all the scientists on the opposing sides such as these: Home - Global Warming Petition Project

    or point out how CO2 is what we exhale and harmful or not, taxing everyone is not going to fix anything. Am i gonna breath less to save money? that sounds smart.

    or how about how there are large frozen methane deposits below the ocean? Will taxing us prevent those from being released?

    Please help me understand if i am wrong. don't point at my shoot and call me crazy, PROVE ME WRONG!!
  16. #1937  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post

    Here's a little science for you. Take a glass and fill it with ice cubes. Then add water until the water is 1/4 inch from the top of the glass. Let it sit until the ice melts. How much water spills over the top of the glass?
    Now consider how much ice would have to melt in order to raise the oceans 1 foot. How much ice is there on the planet? How much ocean? How long will it take to melt enough ice to raise the ocean one inch?
    Call us when your house is flooded.
    Wow, I guess the majority of scientists in the world just missed that utterly convincing proof.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #1938  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Wow, I guess the majority of scientists in the world just missed that utterly convincing proof.
    Actually smart guy there is enough ice on the planet to raise the level of the oceans several hundred feet. You aren't aware of that because you just parrot crap from your leftist buddies.
    The problem is at current rates it would take thousands of years for enough of the ice to melt to cause this to happen. And that 's assuming there was no cooling period replacing ice (like the one we're in now).

    What proof do you offer? "majority of scientists in the world" is not proof of any kind. Data. You got any?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  18. #1939  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    What proof do you offer? "majority of scientists in the world" is not proof of any kind. Data. You got any?
    The majority of scientists in the world seem to think they do...all of which pales to the "ice cube in a glass" proof, of course. Providing data has been typically been useless, as folks continually dismiss any data brought forth.

    If you are interested, you can start here:

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...an_impact.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202085036.htm

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/clim...al_warming.php

    And that 's assuming there was no cooling period replacing ice (like the one we're in now).
    We're not in a "cooling period replacing ice"...we have cooled from 1999, the warmest year in recorded history. That doesn't mean we've cooled significantly. This is still the warmest decade on record.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/21/2009 at 03:20 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. #1940  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The majority of scientists in the world seem to think they do...all of which pales to the "ice cube in a glass" proof, of course. My providing data is useless, as you continually dismiss any data brought forth.

    If interested, go back here

    Evidence For Human-caused Global Warming Is Now 'Unequivocal'
    I was unaware that the majority of scientists in the world all belonged to these organizations. Amazing. I feel better now.

    What about all the scientists that don't study climate change? Are they such a small number that they don't affect "the majority'?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson

Posting Permissions