And now we know the underlying reason..

[hollodero]

(02-12-2017, 01:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Now, I can understand your impulse to buy into the notion that the World needs to change it's economic model, because we are destroying the planet and all.  But, have you all ever taken the time to consider that volcanic activity has much more of a dramatic effect on the CO2 volume than anything that man can produce?

Volcanoes.

Two things. First, this argument doesn't stand an intellectual test. Volcanoes were around all the time and long before the industrial revolution started. So their CO2 output is a more or less contant input to a natural CO2 cycle.
Our output, however, is not.
Second, and this is way more important, the argument is factually wrong too. Volcanoes only contribute about 1% of CO2 that humans emit. 1% of our output. That's all.

AS for your quote. I fail to see an "underlying reason" for a "climate change lie". I see an observation and a possible danger - followed by a logical consequence to avoid that danger. As you said, we eff up the climate and the oceans (observation, danger), hence we need to change our ways (logical consequence). It's not evil to see things that way.

You just do not want to change your ways, I accuse! That forms your opinion on climate change. And it's just that - an opinion, shaped by wishful thinking and political stance, not by facts. If I need to trust someone to be un-opinionated, I choose the scientists over people who cite volcanoes to debunk a ridiculous lie all the time.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2017, 01:42 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sorry to ignore y'all, but it is Saturday night.  Evidently sipping some Vodka mixed with Blackberry gingerale, and getting some from the wife took precedence over responding to your replies. 

However, Cklw88 and Nasti Bengals, you both seem to be fully on the bandwagon that the Earth is going to end next Tuesday.  However, if you look around the glorious internet, you will find that many of these "scientists" are fabricating data, based on "projections".  A few of them have come to acknowledge the error of their fraudulent ways, and spill the beans. 

Now, I can understand your impulse to buy into the notion that the World needs to change it's economic model, because we are destroying the planet and all.  But, have you all ever taken the time to consider that volcanic activity has much more of a dramatic effect on the CO2 volume than anything that man can produce?

Face the real facts that Earth itself dictates climate change much more than man could ever hope to.

Yeah, no.

But maybe that's the Vodka talking?

Because the internet also has people insist the earth is flat.  And they may even cite scientists.  LOL

It's not going to end tomorrow, but that doesn't mean we can't look into the future and try to prepare ourselves.

Well, unless it costs someone a buck or two then its right out!  

[BoomerFan]

Do we know the reason why this "round Earth" fraud has been perpetuated yet? I mean we all know the Earth is flat so the scam that has been perpetrated probably has something to do with people not wanting us to trade with China or something like that right?

[Belsnickel]

(02-11-2017, 09:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the OP: Is man effecting his environment? Of course. It's just some over-react or under-react depending on his motive. Nothing wrong with reducing my carbon footprint; however, I shouldn't be forced to. 

I just want to go back to this, because it's the most sensible post in the thread so far.

There are some heavy handed actions taken by governments in the name of environmental health that rub me the wrong way, no doubt. I don't think extra taxes on disposable items should happen (though if a store, for instance Aldi, wants to do eliminate bags on their own, good on them. I'm not for the government getting rid of incandescent light bulbs. I do my best to reduce the amount of MSW I produce, but that's not something that should be forced. It works in other countries, but that is not our model. Cleaner water and air, less waste in landfills, relying more on reusable materials and renewable energy sources, all of these things are good but we should not tie them to climate change. We should incentivize investment, we should incentivize recycling and using renewables, we shouldn't penalize those that don't. Just my thoughts.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2017, 12:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to go back to this, because it's the most sensible post in the thread so far.

There are some heavy handed actions taken by governments in the name of environmental health that rub me the wrong way, no doubt. I don't think extra taxes on disposable items should happen (though if a store, for instance Aldi, wants to do eliminate bags on their own, good on them. I'm not for the government getting rid of incandescent light bulbs. I do my best to reduce the amount of MSW I produce, but that's not something that should be forced. It works in other countries, but that is not our model. Cleaner water and air, less waste in landfills, relying more on reusable materials and renewable energy sources, all of these things are good but we should not tie them to climate change. We should incentivize investment, we should incentivize recycling and using renewables, we shouldn't penalize those that don't. Just my thoughts.

Why not both?

Big business has shown a *tendency* to not give a dame about the environment if they can save a buck.

(Now I realize that's just over the last 200 years or so.   )

But encouraging people to do well and penalizing people who do not seems fair to me.

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2017, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why not both?

Big business has shown a *tendency* to not give a dame about the environment if they can save a buck.

(Now I realize that's just over the last 200 years or so.   )

But encouraging people to do well and penalizing people who do not seems fair to me.

I should have added after my editing of the post, that direct pollution should be penalized, like chemicals in our watershed and what not. But if using fossil fuels is currently the standard, we can't penalize carbon emissions. We should incentivize investment in renewable energy and incentivize reduction of carbon emissions. Make it so that they are saving money by reducing their carbon footprint. It would create jobs, improve innovation, and achieve better results than trying to be punitive.

But, a municipality shouldn't tax plastic shopping bags, for instance. If a store wants to get rid of them to reduce their costs, because it would, then let them. If a store wants to reduce them down by charging for each bag used, then let them. The consumers can choose to go elsewhere if they like. Me, personally, I will go to Aldi where they don't have plastic bags and use other methods to reduce overhead costs and so can sell products for less money. Incentivizing these sorts of things is a much more effective method, just a matter of figuring out how. Hell, the small thing of these water fountains with a counter on them that tells you how many water bottles have been saved by people using the station to fill up their own is such a simple and seemingly unimportant thing, but it makes someone feel they are doing their part. Incentivize.

Anyway, I'm a little out of it this morning, so my thoughts are kind of all over the place.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2017, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I should have added after my editing of the post, that direct pollution should be penalized, like chemicals in our watershed and what not. But if using fossil fuels is currently the standard, we can't penalize carbon emissions. We should incentivize investment in renewable energy and incentivize reduction of carbon emissions. Make it so that they are saving money by reducing their carbon footprint. It would create jobs, improve innovation, and achieve better results than trying to be punitive.

But, a municipality shouldn't tax plastic shopping bags, for instance. If a store wants to get rid of them to reduce their costs, because it would, then let them. If a store wants to reduce them down by charging for each bag used, then let them. The consumers can choose to go elsewhere if they like. Me, personally, I will go to Aldi where they don't have plastic bags and use other methods to reduce overhead costs and so can sell products for less money. Incentivizing these sorts of things is a much more effective method, just a matter of figuring out how. Hell, the small thing of these water fountains with a counter on them that tells you how many water bottles have been saved by people using the station to fill up their own is such a simple and seemingly unimportant thing, but it makes someone feel they are doing their part. Incentivize.

Anyway, I'm a little out of it this morning, so my thoughts are kind of all over the place.

Figured that's what you meant.

But you also realize (I am sure) that those taxes are used because the elected officials promise to "not raise taxes".

So they raise fees and tax "things".

[Belsnickel]

(02-12-2017, 01:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Figured that's what you meant.

But you also realize (I am sure) that those taxes are used because the elected officials promise to "not raise taxes".

So they raise fees and tax "things".

I know. It's the most ridiculous fiscal strategy that we see happen. Raising taxes on a product that we want to see a reduced use of and tying those funds to something specific. It's what I hate about SCHIP.

I just wish that people would look at the realities of the world and realize that taxation is a necessity. I think we all know the famous quote of Justice Holmes, even if we don't realize it was him who said it and why. Madison himself said the power of a government to levy taxes was a necessity. We need our government to be responsible with our money, but tying their hands by refusing to fund things is moronic.

Anyway, enough of my tax ranting for right now.

[Dill]

(02-11-2017, 07:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..for all of the "climate change" propaganda.

http://www.allenbwest.com/derrick-wilburn/scam-unraveling-right-eyes


So, there it is.  It's all a scam to manipulate the Worldwide economic development model.  Can hardly wait to see what our resident gallery of climate change apologists have to say about this.

Sunset, I need a little help with this.

What I hear the climate scientists saying is that because of the potentially disastrous effects of climate change, we need to change the way we extract and burn carbons for energy.

I.e., climate change science drives their energy policy.

What I hear you and West saying is that climate scientists want to change the way the economy works so they invented a scary story about global warming.

I.e., desired energy policy drives their climate change science.  

How does stating the policy reconsideration that ought to follow what science tells us about climate change suddenly flip the cause/effect relation here? You are saying that climate scientists from many different nationalities and social/political have for generations been trying to change our politics with their scary story and now one has suddenly "slipped"? The cat is out of the bag?

You also state:

However, if you look around the glorious internet, you will find that many of these "scientists" are fabricating data, based on "projections".  A few of them have come to acknowledge the error of their fraudulent ways, and spill the beans. 

Could you perhaps provide some links to your sources here?

I confess I often do look around the internet, but I don't find reliable links to "scientists" fabricating data based upon "projections." Though I do find non-scientists of a certain political persuasion claiming this. And I do find the extraction industry funding "counter-science" to muddy the policy discussion.

Check out this 1998 memo from Joe Walker, who headed Exxon Mobil's task force on global climate change, a public relations blitz designed to convince journalists, politicians, HS science teachers, and the public that the jury was still out on climate change and so Kyoto style policy changes should be avoided.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Science%20Communications%20Plan%20(1998).pdf

And all this AFTER Exxonmobile knew, from its own research, that climate change was anthropogenic. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Is it your view that scientists have an "agenda" while Exxon and BP are just ordinary folks who want to provide jobs for hardworking Americans if the socialists will just get out of their way?

[SunsetBengal]

(02-12-2017, 02:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Sunset, I need a little help with this.

What I hear the climate scientists saying is that because of the potentially disastrous effects of climate change, we need to change the way we extract and burn carbons for energy.

I.e., climate change science drives their energy policy.

What I hear you and West saying is that climate scientists want to change the way the economy works so they invented a scary story about global warming.

I.e., desired energy policy drives their climate change science.  

How does stating the policy reconsideration that ought to follow what science tells us about climate change suddenly flip the cause/effect relation here? You are saying that climate scientists from many different nationalities and social/political have for generations been trying to change our politics with their scary story and now one has suddenly "slipped"? The cat is out of the bag?

You also state:

However, if you look around the glorious internet, you will find that many of these "scientists" are fabricating data, based on "projections".  A few of them have come to acknowledge the error of their fraudulent ways, and spill the beans. 

Could you perhaps provide some links to your sources here?

I confess I often do look around the internet, but I don't find reliable links to "scientists" fabricating data based upon "projections." Though I do find non-scientists of a certain political persuasion claiming this. And I do find the extraction industry funding "counter-science" to muddy the policy discussion.

Check out this 1998 memo from Joe Walker, who headed Exxon Mobil's task force on global climate change, a public relations blitz designed to convince journalists, politicians, HS science teachers, and the public that the jury was still out on climate change and so Kyoto style policy changes should be avoided.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Science%20Communications%20Plan%20(1998).pdf

And all this AFTER Exxonmobile knew, from its own research, that climate change was anthropogenic. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Is it your view that scientists have an "agenda" while Exxon and BP are just ordinary folks who want to provide jobs for hardworking Americans if the socialists will just get out of their way?

I'll admit that this started out as a half-drunken shit post, solely for the purpose of stirring up some amusement.

However, I found a lengthy list of Scientists, both dead and live, who disagree with the Climate Change theory in one facet or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Then there was this email scandal, of HRC type proportions.  This was mostly downplayed by American mainstream media, as it was during the height of the Obama years, and because Al Gore..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1541b336988d


But fortunately, these stories get much more play in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/

There are plenty more articles, I just put a few out there to show.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-12-2017, 04:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'll admit that this started out as a half-drunken shit post, solely for the purpose of stirring up some amusement.

However, I found a lengthy list of Scientists, both dead and live, who disagree with the Climate Change theory in one facet or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Then there was this email scandal, of HRC type proportions.  This was mostly downplayed by American mainstream media, as it was during the height of the Obama years, and because Al Gore..

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1541b336988d


But fortunately, these stories get much more play in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/

There are plenty more articles, I just put a few out there to show.

Is this stuff made up too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHE0n5c6-6g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5wpCo0Sqg

[Dill]

(02-12-2017, 04:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'll admit that this started out as a half-drunken shit post, solely for the purpose of stirring up some amusement.

However, I found a lengthy list of Scientists, both dead and live, who disagree with the Climate Change theory in one facet or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There are plenty more articles, I just put a few out there to show.

Hmmmm. That list doesn't seem so lengthy as all that. Here are two reasons why.

1. Did you notice the graphic with your wiki article? It shows how anomalous are the contrarian views of the signers of your list of scientists opposing the scientific consensus on global warming.

2. If you start going down that list, the oddities begin to appear, starting with the first name, David Bellamy, who came out for global warming, then changed his mind in 2004 based upon stats from a Science which was apparently a hoax. His own credibility destroyed, he has backed out of the climate debate.

Lennart Bengtson, the second signer, appears to have also retracted an initial claim that climate scientists were covering up evidence.

Third name, Piers Corbyn, has a Masters degree in Astrophysics and runs a business for predicting changes in weather, so not really climate scientist, but a participant in Heartland Institute conferences--funded by Big Oil.  etc. etc. etc.

The email scandal referred to in your links to British papers was rather well known in the U.S. It was heavily investigated in the UK, with same result as voter fraud scandals in the U.S.--nothing there.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-12-2017, 07:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmmm. That list doesn't seem so lengthy as all that. Here are two reasons why.

1. Did you notice the graphic with your wiki article? It shows how anomalous are the contrarian views of the signers of your list of scientists opposing the scientific consensus on global warming.

2. If you start going down that list, the oddities begin to appear, starting with the first name, David Bellamy, who came out for global warming, then changed his mind in 2004 based upon stats from a Science which was apparently a hoax. His own credibility destroyed, he has backed out of the climate debate.

Lennart Bengtson, the second signer, appears to have also retracted an initial claim that climate scientists were covering up evidence.

Third name, Piers Corbyn, has a Masters degree in Astrophysics and runs a business for predicting changes in weather, so not really climate scientist, but a participant in Heartland Institute conferences--funded by Big Oil.  etc. etc. etc.

The email scandal referred to in your links to British papers was rather well known in the U.S. It was heavily investigated in the UK, with same result as voter fraud scandals in the U.S.--nothing there.

Look, I realize that humans have an effect on Earth and the atmosphere.  I'm just saying that it is being exaggerated for purposes of fulfilling some sort of agenda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

Quote:The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues. And as he explained to the MoS, one key concern is the reliability of new data on sea temperatures issued in 2015 at the same time as the Pausebuster paper.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next
  

• Back to work! The Obamas hire managers for upcoming speech...Trump could tear up Paris climate change agreement 'as early...
  

Share this article
Share
It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.
They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.
No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YVq7JEYv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Dill]

 You're a good guy, Sunset. Don't let them suck you in.

[Beaker]

(02-11-2017, 08:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The "science"?  Their sample size is but less than a pin prick sized dot in the cumulative history of the Earth.  

CO2 levels have a direct correlation with temperature, that fact is indisputable.

That said, we have several methods beyond ice cores from which we can extrapolate CO2 levels going back millions of years. One method is from fossilized leaves and their stomata. Stomata are the pores on the underside of leaves that plants use to take in CO2. The trade off is that while the stomata are open, the plant loses water. So it is an evolutionary advantage for a plat to be able to get by with as few stomata as possible to reduce water loss during CO2 uptake.

We can use modern plants along with ice cores to see the correlation. During times of high atmospheric CO2, leaves have fewer stomata....the plant can get enough CO2 with fewer pores. During times of low atmospheric CO2, the number of stmata on leaves is significantly higher...the plant needs more pores to get enough C)2 to conduct photosynthesis. With this correlation, and the correlation between CO2 and temperatures, we can get a good look going back hundreds of millions of years.

Do you know what has been found? That the highest CO2 levels also correlated with the highest levels of species extinction in Earth's history...and in fact directly correlating with two of them. Let's think about that...current CO2 levels are higher (and still climbing) than at almost any other time on several hundred million years according to several different methods of obtaining that data....2 of which I outlined. 

I don't know how much more of a sample size you need to start catching on.  But suffice it to say, there are other metods that scientists are using besides the limited knowledge you may be basing your opinion off of.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-12-2017, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Look, I realize that humans have an effect on Earth and the atmosphere.  I'm just saying that it is being exaggerated for purposes of fulfilling some sort of agenda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I hear it is the illuminati running the show. Their evil plan to protect the environment thus taking over the world has even enlisted the help of Dr. Evil.

[GMDino]

(02-12-2017, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Look, I realize that humans have an effect on Earth and the atmosphere.  I'm just saying that it is being exaggerated for purposes of fulfilling some sort of agenda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

The direct refute to this is what I posted.

He's not a "whistle blower" he's a guy upset about what and how the stats are stored and released.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-12-2017, 08:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: CO2 levels have a direct correlation with temperature, that fact is indisputable.

That said, we have several methods beyond ice cores from which we can extrapolate CO2 levels going back millions of years. One method is from fossilized leaves and their stomata. Stomata are the pores on the underside of leaves that plants use to take in CO2. The trade off is that while the stomata are open, the plant loses water. So it is an evolutionary advantage for a plat to be able to get by with as few stomata as possible to reduce water loss during CO2 uptake.

We can use modern plants along with ice cores to see the correlation. During times of high atmospheric CO2, leaves have fewer stomata....the plant can get enough CO2 with fewer pores. During times of low atmospheric CO2, the number of stmata on leaves is significantly higher...the plant needs more pores to get enough C)2 to conduct photosynthesis. With this correlation, and the correlation between CO2 and temperatures, we can get a good look going back hundreds of millions of years.

Do you know what has been found? That the highest CO2 levels also correlated with the highest levels of species extinction in Earth's history...and in fact directly correlating with two of them. Let's think about that...current CO2 levels are higher (and still climbing) than at almost any other time on several hundred million years according to several different methods of obtaining that data....2 of which I outlined. 

I don't know how much more of a sample size you need to start catching on.  But suffice it to say, there are other metods that scientists are using besides the limited knowledge you may be basing your opinion off of.

Thanks Beaker, that information is very interesting.  I'll be sure to read more about the stomata analysis.

(02-12-2017, 09:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: The direct refute to this is what I posted.

He's not a "whistle blower" he's a guy upset about what and how the stats are stored and released.

What do you think a "whistle blower" is?  Obviously, he wants to point out that the information being used, has been manipulated to show something in a different light that it actually was.  Duh...

[GMDino]

(02-12-2017, 10:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Thanks Beaker, that information is very interesting.  I'll be sure to read more about the stomata analysis.



What do you think a "whistle blower" is?  Obviously, he wants to point out that the information being used, has been manipulated to show something in a different light that it actually was.  Duh...

Nope. re-read it.

Quote:The record data that Bates takes umbrage with showed roughly the same amount of warming as the old record. And the evidence that the Karl paper cites as to why there’s no hiatus is based on ocean temperatures—not land. A government source who does not wish to be named emphasized that there is no evidence or even a credible suggestion that NOAA falsified data in the Karl et al (K15) study. And even if Bates' critiques were valid—and given that this methodology, after much peer review, is now the default way that NOAA calculates land temperatures, his complaints seem problematic—it doesn't upend the study's conclusion.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-12-2017, 10:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nope. re-read it.

Of course NOAA is going to refute what Bates had to say.  Why wouldn't they?