Skip to main content

quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

You're telling me that there isn't a single temperature chart contained in that document? There isn't any scientific data contained in that pdf? Are you going to stand by that statement that the pdf I provided contains no charts or data?

You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link

Do you want more? I've got plenty. You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.


Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?

Were there any scientists in the video I posted?

There is no consensus on global warming. The following link not only provides a number of links with tons of data challenging the "theory", but it also gives a lengthy list of names of scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

Link

Are every one of those people on that list wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link


I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.



Ask yourself ONE question


if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


100 million dollars worth and laughing all the way to the bank

He is such the lier, living in a massive power draining house while jet setting his way around the world. there's a word the demothugs like to use, can you remember that word

his carbon footprint is 20 times the average person yet we are to buy carbon credits from his company

can you not see the truth here, it is so blatantly in front of you
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.



sheeple comes to mind
quote:
I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.


Here's some more. It only works if you click the link.

Link

You also skipped my question. Do you stand by your statement that I did not provide any source that contained temperature charts or data? Just because he is on TV doesn't automatically discredit his data.


If the scientists in Beck's video are incorrect, what evidence do you have that proves them wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?


I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.

Shall I cite a flat earth scientist for you, too? Does his opinion change the fact that the world is a sphere?

Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.

Heck, I'll settle from a source we both agree on: ScienceDaily.com.

quote:
There is no consensus on global warming.


Realty denier: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.
quote:
I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

quote:
Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.


See the video I provided. Here it is again.

Link
You couldn't have watched all of those videos or read all of those articles I've linked in such a short ammount of time.

You're avoiding the evidence I provide then claim I'm not providing any. That's completly irrational.

Either go through those articles I've linked, read them from start to finish, watch the videos from start to finish (they're only 10 min each), then respond. You're spending more time trying to dodge evidence than trying to actually learn something.
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.



Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
July 5th, 2007 Reconstruction of Ancient Greenland

New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate (scientific) organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

Nash, you are the one who is twisting the data, I asked for temperature data from a legitimate scientific source. You keep claiming that this random guy on the internet has some data. I read it but it DOES NOT contain data that those the globe is actually cooling. It DOES NOT have a chart showing a decrease in CO2 levels.

So, yes, I still stand by my assertion.

It would eb really easy to refute me right now Nash. Simply post a link to a NOAA or other legitimate source of news on climate. Again, not just "some guy" but a legitimate source. You know how to post a chart, Nash. Post it. A big-ass picture that I cannot deny. Be done with it. Be sure you cite your source.



quote:

See the video I provided. Here it is again.
Link


It is, again, "some guy" on the internet, Nash. Your Youtube video is not a legitimate source of factual data. The producer clearly a video with an agenda of denying GW. Hardly a source for unbiased data.

And that is NOT how science works. In science, you must refute using factual data from reliable sources.

I'm sure you'll note my restraint in not pulling the moron card yet. Please, Nash, remember this phrase: "Legitimate source of factual data." That means NOT some random GW denier.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.


Antarctica was once a lush tropical continent, too. Yes, this earth has seen many periods of warmth followed by ice ages. This current GW threat is just one single volcanic eruption away from a swing in the opposite direction.

That does not change the fact that, right now, the consensus is that the globe is warming, will continue to do so and the cause is likely man-made.

I've not once stated that GW is a "bad" thing precisely because of this kind of data.

I'm not sure what your point in posting this is, bud.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.



What exactly was MAN doing when Iceland was lush and green?

those dang camp fires really put out the CO2 or was it dinosaur poots?


If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of, let's once again look towards California.
They have the highest requirements for pollution control, yet they are KNOWN for smog.

OK I'm just average we'll say, that tells me nothing you do is going to help!

Link


Carbon for forests will help Aceh recover from war, tsunami
mongabay.com
September 18, 2007


Aceh Governor Irwandi Jusuf, a former rebel who was one of only 40 survivors after the December 2004 tsunami struck the prison where he was incarcerated, is now one of Indonesia's leading supporters of forest conservation funded through carbon credits.
Last edited by Chow
Link


Indonesia could more than double its tax revenue by protecting forests and selling the resulting carbon emission credits instead of timber and palm oil, a University of Michigan researcher told Bloomberg.

Gabriel Thoumi, a consultant and fellow at the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, estimates that carbon credits would generate $515 million a year in tax revenue starting in 2013 for the Indonesian government. By comparison, tax revenue from logging and palm oil is presently around $258 million a year.

Thoumi's calculations are based on the assumption that Indonesia could sell 750 million metric tons of credits annually at a price of $8 per ton. United Nations-certified emission reduction credits for delivery in 2008 currently trade at nearly $21 per ton.


The $8.6 billion in annual revenue from carbon offsets would come in addition to the $5.4 billion in timber exports and the $4.4 billion in palm oil exports Indonesia presently earns.

Carbon offsets through avoided deforestation are seen as an promising mechanism to offset greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006 deforestation and other land-use change accounted for 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions, or around 15 percent of total anthropogenic emissions, according to a study published last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists and environmentalists say that avoided deforestation will delivery ancillary benefits beyond carbon sequestration, including watershed conservation and biodiversity preservation. Some argue that avoided deforestation could be a sustainable way to improve the lives of rural poor.

To date more than a dozen tropical countries have expressed interest in a $200 million forestry fund launched by the World Bank earlier this month. The fund will launch in December at the UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.
Follow the money



Link

This past June, World Bank published a report warning that climate change presents serious risks to Indonesia, including the possibility of losing 2,000 islands as sea levels rise. While this scenario is dire, proposed mechanisms for addressing climate change, notably carbon credits through avoided deforestation, offer a unique opportunity for Indonesia to strengthen its economy while demonstrating worldwide innovative political and environmental leadership.

In a July 29th editorial we argued that in some cases, preserving ecosystems for carbon credits could be more valuable than conversion for oil palm plantations (known as sawit kelapa in Indonesia), providing higher tax revenue for the Indonesian treasury while at the same time offering attractive economic returns for investors.


Forest cover versus palm oil production in Indonesia. To review, avoided deforestation is the process by which owners, be them governments, communities, or landholders, sell the carbon rights to a given area to private investors. The private investor then sells the carbon credits on international markets to companies looking to offset their emissions. Avoided deforestation is currently only recognized as a voluntary emission reduction (VER) scheme, but it is expected that the concept will be embraced at the December U.N. climate (COP-13) meetings in Bali, especially if proof-of-concept projects are showing signs of success.

Indonesia, thanks to its nearly 20 million hectares of peatland swamps, is well-positioned to capitalize on the growth of carbon credit mechanisms in the future. In fact, conversion, draining, and burning of these peatlands (often for the establishment of sawit kelapa) is presently estimated by Wetlands International, a Dutch NGO, to release some 2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. This equates to 8 percent of human global carbon emissions and is why Indonesia is the world's third largest emitter of carbon after China and the US. While conventional wisdom says that converting these peatlands for sawit kelapa is the best economic use of the land, our analysis shows that carbon credits could prove a better long-term investment for Indonesian businesses and the government. In fact, not only would slowing deforestation and protecting carbon-rich ecosystems allow Indonesia to potentially earn billions of dollars a year from carbon markets, it would also reduce national exposure to price fluctuations of sawit kelapa, as well as the potential risk of European backlash against sawit kelapa as a biofuel.

Here we will take a closer look at these possibilities, using a specific example from the peatlands of Central Kalimantan.

Central Kalimantan

Few places are more suitable for carbon finance projects than Central Kalimantan, which has 3 million hectares of peatlands that store 6.3 gigatons carbon. To illustrate the economic potential of carbon credits versus oil-palm, we compared the net present value (NPV) of a standard 1,000-hectare sawit kelapa plantation to a 1,000-hectare peat swamp preserved for its carbon value.

Sawit kelapa plantation assumptions:
$2,700 per hectare cost for new plantation development, financed at 10% (published figures)
Average yield of 4.8 tons of sawit per ha over 25 years (IOPRI/ICRAF)
Sawit price of $750 per metric ton (current price)
Net income of 30% (published figures)
7% tax rate, discount rate of 16%
Peatland preserved for carbon credits assumptions:
10% management cost
Avoided carbon emissions relative to sawit kelapa: 100 tons per ha for initial forest clearing; 27 tons per year thereafter
Carbon credits, based on real-world market values averaged for 2006:
EU ETS Trading Scheme ($22.12)
Secondary Clean Development Mechanism ($17.76)
The State of the Voluntary Markets report released last month by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance ($14.00)
7% tax rate
Results for business

Our results show that preserving land for its carbon value is worth more than sawit kelapa at present prices for carbon in legally binding markets: $9.99 million for the EU ETS Trading Scheme, $8.02 million for the Secondary Clean Development Mechanism, and $6.32 million for State of the Voluntary Markets report. This compares with $6.58 million in net income over a 25-year period for sawit kelapa plantations. Even if sawit prices were to go to $1,000 per metric ton, net income would still be less than current ETS prices.

Results for government

Carbon credits could also provide the Indonesian treasury with greater tax revenues than sawit kelapa, especially given the recent report that 90% of the country's plantations had underpaid their taxes (Jakarta Post 14 Aug). At a 7 percent tax rate for carbon, the present value of tax revenue for the Indonesian government ranges from $476,000 to $752,000, whereas the oil palm plantation generates $495,000. In fact, the model suggests that at some carbon prices the Indonesian government could actually charge a slightly higher tax rate for carbon credits than sawit kelapa, and still leave Indonesian businesses better off financially than if they were to rely on sawit kelapa.



Net present value (NPV) of 1000-ha (2500-acre) peat swamp vs oil palm plantation. Chart shows the effect of palm oil at various prices and various carbon trading schemes. Assumptions: 15% discount/10% interest rate; Year 1: 100 tons of C/ha, 27 tons of C/ha (=100 tCO2e/ha) in years thereafter; medium average palm oil yield of 5.3 tons per hectare per year over the 25 year period.

Calculations and charts by Rhett A. Butler.



These results show that carbon credits offer a great deal of economic potential for central Kalimantan at a low investment cost. Furthermore, carbon offsets are applicable to virtually any part of Indonesia that has intact forests and peatlands. Such a development could make conservation profitable in Indonesia, an important step to protecting the environment and biodiversity.

Given the immense possibility for carbon markets in the future land owners should give serious consideration to carbon values in making land use decisions. While sawit kelapa can and will continue to play an important role in the economy, carbon offsets offer a mechanism to bolster and diversify Indonesia's financial exposure while at the same time minimizing their negative environmental footprint.
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.

The first link may have been written by a television meteorologist, but he gave extensive citations on where he got his data. He didn't pull those facts out of his butt, they are proven scientifically.

Don't ask for evidence if you don't have the balls to accept the fact you are wrong. When it comes to this bogus scam, you are. This isn't a religious debate where I respect your opinion to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. This is a serious political and scientific hoax and it has serious consequences for falling for it.

With our government about to pass the cap and trade fiasco, we're going to be paying a lot more at the pump, a lot more for our utilities, and a lot more at the grocery store. All of that for a non existent problem that many scientists are trying to say is a scam, but too many people are gullible enough to think we're all going to die unless we allow the politicians to save us.

You're too stubborn to open your eyes and look at what's been given to you, you are too afraid of looking bad and being proved wrong so you ignore all the data and whine about no one having any evidence. You've been given ample amounts of data that shows man made global warming is false. Your stubborn ego overrides any logic you may claim to have and it's obvious to everyone but you.

When you're paying $100 to fill up your car, don't whine about it, blame yourself. You're the one who bought a politician's lies instead of using your mind to see past them.

Rant over, I feel better now.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.


Nope. You've posted the opinions of global warming deniers.

You spent, what, a half hour writing deatils of why you refuse to post a legitimate refutation. Why not simply post a graph from a legitimate scientific organization (not "some guy") like this Nash?

Below is an interesting one from Link

It shows the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. What is not really known with 100% certainty is if CO2 levels cause temp increase or of temp increase causes higher CO2 levels (thus my hesitancy of supporting Obama's meddling).

All that is known (with great historical certainty) is that CO2 levels and temperature are very closely related.

You can clearly see that for the past 450,000 years, the CO2 level has not exceeded 340 or so parts per million (ppm). What is not shown here is the fact that the current level is off the chart at nearly 400ppm. Link Again, it's at a level not seen in 2 MILLION years.

That is a sobering fact, Nash. Or it should be to anyone that can grasp the meaning.

Again, Nash, give me a link to a legitimate source of info that contradicts that CO2 levels are lower than they ever have been.

Post the graph right here so I cannot deny seeing it. I think this makes the 4th request?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.



you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake. Remove that and you might convince me a little easier but I doubt it.

california is the only proof I need, so far they have proved the socialist pacifist approach will drain the state financially. The Cap n trade approach has also failed, otherwise California would be admired for their clean air.

They are proving that by raising taxes on the wealthy will not work.
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.

Since you won't do it on your own, I'll do it for you. Here is a list of organizations who question global warming.

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

Not much of a consensus there.

Here are some surveys among the scientific community on global warming.

68% of Alberta Earth Scientists and Engineers Do Not Believe the Science is Settled on Climate Change (Edmonton Journal)
Copenhagen Consensus 2004 (Copenhagen Consensus)
"A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists [...] looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits."
First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming (PR Newswire)
"Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. [...] 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change."
RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)
"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)
"A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now."
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)
"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. [...] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)


All of that came from just one link that I've already given you. This one.

Link

If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying. To say that you haven't been given any evidence puts you in the same intellectual dishonesty realm as your buddy Bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.


That's not exactly a resounding critique of the data, Faatus, and, agian, it's just "some guy."

In his OPINION the scientists rely on the "climate models"? Do you know what that means? He dismisses the computer models. Supercomputer models. You know, the ones he gets his entire forecast from. Wink

He also states "the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

Loose similarity? That's kind of like saying there is a loose similarity between Flatulence and smell. There is a profound link between CO2 levels and temperature as the graph I posted clearly reveals.

What is not clear is if CO2 is a cause or a result of temperature change.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.


Nash, it would take less time to post a link to a graph showing global cooling or CO2 decrease.

You have made it abundantly clear that there are plenty of individuals who refute the consensus. That does nothing to refute my chart.

(I'll take a stab or two at your list in a minute)

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.



Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Man has not made any volcanos except that one time on the brady bunch

no cookies from you, it's the thought that counts
Following are a few of your "legitimate" picks, Nash. I'm picking them out at random.


From Wiki:
The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science". It is operated by Steven Milloy from his home in Potomac, Maryland.

In other words, it's a organization formed to deny GW. BRRRrrrrrrrrrrrraaaap.

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy in your list is another lobby group formed to attack GW. Exxon recelty donated $183,500 to them. Link Perhaps just a little biased, Nash?

The Greening Earth Society, now defunct, was a public relations organization which promoted the idea that there is considerable scientific doubt about the effects of climate change and increased levels of carbon dioxide. Link

Hey, now this one sounds pretty legitimate: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Link says "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was launched in May 2006 with the aim of "refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.""

Oops. Another front for lobbyists.

Nash, I swear to god, I jsut picked these at random and got 100% hit on de-legitimizing them.

Come on, I dare ya, pick two or three more, find out why they exist. If they are a scientific organization whose "bias" is science, then you get a cookie. If they are formed to give Big Oil a voice, then what dos that tell you?

Come on, Nash. Put on your thinking cap.

I'm still waiting on that graph that shows a decrease in temperatures and CO2 levels, Nash. It sure seems to me that it could easy to psot the pic so I can quite denying I've seen it.

Why haven't you posted it?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:

Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Yup.

But we have not have a major eruption in the past 50 years so how do you explain the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?


Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could

plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×