Common Fallacies among Global Warming Conspiracy TheoristsI just ran across this article and think that us ignorant climate deniers might find this information useless against the the conspiracy types, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/father-of-climatology-calls-manmade-global-warming-absurd/ Interesting to note that it was written by someone they call the father of climatology.
global warming is a joke on so many levels.. why is such an important thread relgated to obscurity here in misc.. sub consp thy. ?? more "political moderation"??
I put it in the conspiracy theories because this is where all the AGW threads belong. There is no provable evidence that the globe is warming due to mankind.
Dat's why Uncle Ferd tol' Granny to wait till the cool of the evenin' to mow the lawn... 2014 could be hottest year on record, says NOAA Nov. 30, 2014 | Record high temperatures in October were recorded on land and sea.
Granny says, "Dat's right - we all like a frog inna cookin' kettle... Climate change: 2015 seems set to break record as warmest year Wednesday 21st October, 2015 | WASHINGTON - Adding to the growing evidence of climate change, the latest weather data analysis by the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 2015 could break the record set last year of being the hottest year in the 136-year recorded data.
Ya can't fight what the sun's doin'... French Mathematicians Blast UNs Costly & Pointless Crusade Against Global Warming October 29, 2015 As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming absurd and a costly and pointless crusade.
Granny says, "Dat's right - it's `cause o' all dat Chinese pollution why we havin' all dis global warmin'... Obama Predicts: Submerged Countries. Abandoned Cities. Fields That No Longer Grow November 30, 2015 - Speaking today at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, President Barack Obama predicted that, unless the nations of the world acted now to combat climate change, countries would be submerged, cities would be abandoned, fields would no longer grown, and there would be new conflicts and floods of refugees. See also: Concern Rising Over Massive Annual Seaweed Invasion in West Africa November 29, 2015 Large amounts of seaweed have been washing up on the beaches of Sierra Leone and other countries in West Africa and the Caribbean. Scientists say climate change may be to blame. Local environmental protection authorities plan to bring it up at the U.N.s climate change summit in Paris, which starts Monday. Related: Beijing air pollution reaches hazardous levels Dec 1,`15 -- Schools in the Chinese capital kept students indoors and parents brought their kids to hospitals with breathing ailments Tuesday as Beijing grappled with extremely severe air pollution for the fifth straight day.
Arctic wasn't ice free in the summer of 2013... Kerry Was Wildly, Extraordinarily, Entirely Wrong About Global Warming December 9, 2015 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pointed out Tuesday that Secretary of State John Kerry - who is currently in Paris calling for a climate change agreement with a legally binding enforcement mechanism - was wildly, extraordinarily, entirely wrong when as a senator in 2009, Kerry predicted that the Arctic would be ice free in the summer of 2013.
Heatsinks, like Louisville, Ky. have warmer temps due to the 'bowl effect'... Study: Surface Temps Lower at 410 Weather Stations With Minimal Artificial Impact December 17, 2015 Surface temperatures recorded over three decades at 410 ideally situated weather stations are markedly lower than temperatures recorded at stations located near multiple heatsinks, according to a new study presented Thursday at the 2015 fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
Keep safety in mind... Coast Guard Warns of Dangerous Water Temperatures Dec 22, 2015 The Coast Guard is reminding boaters and paddlers heading out on the water this holiday season to keep safety in mind.
Since we've drifted so far off topic I'll respond to you here. I've been putting off starting a new AGW thread but I'll put some time aside soon to expand upon my blog entry on the Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy Theory which you should read. There is no consensus as the OP on this thread shows. No survey of Climatologists has ever been conducted. As I've said repeatedly, if anyone can show me a scientific survey of Climatologists that says 97% of them agree on global warming I'll ban myself from this forum. This is one of the sillier notions that I've seen recently, that climate change and global warming are unrelated. Why are the experts in global warming climatologists then? Maybe we should consult global warmingologists? You don't have to be a climatologist to know that the math, the computer models and the physics of the global warming scammers doesn't add up. Geologists know that what the global warming alarmists are saying isn't true based on the geological records. Astronomers know that what they are saying doesn't add up based on the relationship of the rotation and tilt of the Earth. Chemists know that the formulas used in the models are bogus. Statisticians and mathematicians know that the statistical data is flawed and the math doesn't add up. Computer specialists know that there are too many unknown variables to be calculated to get an accurate outcome. Physicists understand the problem is incalculable. And Heliologists will tell you that the Sun plays a much greater part in global warming than climatologists are willing to admit. Global warming is just a tenant, a dogma of the religion of liberalism. As such, true believers in global warming will drift towards those particular beliefs. Such is true for climatologists. Like people who believe in God are more apt to get degrees in theology, people who believe in global warming are more apt get degrees in climatology. I bet if you conduct a survey of priests and ministers, they will tell you that God exists. But when you get down to it, the science isn't there. So they try to fix the science, manipulate the data, to fit their doomsday scenarios. Politics has gotten in the way of the science. In the end, it is all about control. Global warming is just a scam by socialists and the green movement, formerly known as communism, to tax the poor and have power over the means of production. Here's a great video by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel: [video=youtube;SyUDGfCNC-k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k[/video]
This reads like a "Creationist" website attempting to dispute the natural evolution of species on the planet. Long on allegations citing science without any evidence to dispute the science. While citing sceintific information it ignores the fact that science is well aware of the reasons for natural climate change, and includes those factors in it's analysis, and additionally makes outright false statements. For example the opening statement is false: While politicians may gain power and capitalists may financially line the pockets based upon the science the climatologist doesn't make a single additional dime off of whether climate change and global warming are real or not. They're on a salary from the institution or organization they work for and don't get a "raise" based upon climate change or global warming. All the climatologist does is measure the temperatures of the air, land, and seas and report on those measurements. Then they take into account all of the possible reasons that would be required for these changes to occur. The climatologists report the "science" and don't gain any power or any additional income from reporting the science. The argument is based upon the "politics" and not the "science" and no one disputes that there's a political debate on what to do about the climate change and global warming that the scientists have documented and reported. The actual consensus is based upon climate change and not global warming but after reading the following I'll request that you don't ban yourself because your own source confirms that at least one study has been conducted while NASA refers to numerous peer reviewed scientific studies. From NASA: From your source (which happens to be you): So in your blog you state that there was a study (Cook's - University of Queensland). You do go on to say the study was "A faulty study. A biased study. A study that was intended to deceive. A study with a predetermined outcome." based upon a blog but fail to provide any scientific study that dispute's Cook's research. Show me the scientific study that disputes Cook's findings because the blog doesn't do that. The argument against Cook's research hinges upon the following. First of all you don't dismiss a scientific study based upon three phases of data collection. What type of stupid idiot would put forward such a proposition? Next is the fact that this was a peer reviewed study and no major scientific organization has disputed the results by releasing any contradictory conclusions based upon their own studies. All of the peer review and not one major scientific organization has disputed Cook's findings. As NASA notes there have been numerous studies and not a single one disputes Cook's findings. Ultimately your own previous post establishes that Cook did conduct a scientific study that's been peer reviewed and undisputed by any major scientific organization and, while you choose to ignore it based upon rhetoric without any scientific foundation, the study was conducted, peer reviewed, and remains undisputed by any other scientific study. No one has claimed that climate change and global warming don't have any relationship to each other. Climate change is based upon measurements of the troposphere (low level atmosphere) and is highly variable as it neither absorbs or retains very much heat energy from the sun. It can be highly effected by solar phenomena such as sun spots but the lasting effects are virtually nil. Global warming relates planet temperature and the planet is slow to absorb solar heat and to dissipate it. Eventually global warming does affect the tropospheric temperatures over extended periods of time but how quickly and how much is very hard to calculate. That's why the "climate change models" based upon global warming have been inaccurate. We're measuring the increased global temperature where the oceans, especially the deep oceans, are increasing in temperature (that requires a massive absorption of solar heat because of the density and vast amount of ocean water) but how quickly that's tranferred into increases in the tropospheric temperatures is very hard to calculate over very short time periods such as decades. It's much easier to predict the heat transfer from the ocean to the troposphere over 100 years than it is to predict it over 10-20 years. By way of analogy I worked in the solar thermal industry in the 1970's. We built parabolic collectors that could easily bring water to a boil. What we were unable to do is to be able to predict down to the minute how long it would take for the water to boil. We know it would boil in perhaps 15 minutes plus/minus five minutes but that ten minute difference that was a huge variable. We could predict the heat transfer from the solar energy to the water but how quickly that occurred was based upon so many variables that trying to pin it down accurately to the minute was impossible. Climatologists face the same problem. They know that the oceans are warming significantly (i.e. global warming), especially since the 1980's, but because of the number of variables related to heat transfer from the water to the air (climate change) it's very hard to pin down how long it will take for this to happen. The person that doesn't understand this isn't really qualified to discuss the science of global warming and climate change at all. Actually you must be a climatologist to understand the math of global warming and climate change because it's very complex math. The climatologists have done the math and based upon all of the natural causes the "sum" is less than the global warming we're experiencing. All of the above is accounted for and there's not a single mathmatical equation that accounts for the increases in global temperatures based upon natural causes. Only when "man-made" causes are introduced does the equation for global warming balance. If there was a mathmatical equation the accounted for the global warming based exclusively on natural causes then there would be a dispute in the scientific community but that equation doesn't exist which is why there isn't a scientific debate. Nay-sayers exist but there's no scientific debate on the subject. What you don't need to be a climatologist to understand is that if the water gets warmer in the oceans (that the scientists have been documenting) eventually it will heat up the air surrounding it. You confuse the politics with the science which is a very common mistake. The science provides the emperical evidence of global warming and these measurements are not in dispute. What the politicians choose to do with this undisputed scientific evidence is purely political. A meteorologist studies weather, not climate change or global warming. The most common name for a meteorologist is "weatherman" reflecting their very limited understanding of global warming and climate change. Posting the opinion of a meteorologist that talks about the weather and that reflects no understanding of climate change or global warming does not provide any compelling argument. He's not even trained in the right scientific discipline to discuss the topic of global warming and climate change.
So if someone believes well established science such as the Milankovitch Cycles, accepted science for over 100 years, then you are an anti-science creationist? If you don't push the global warming thesis then you are pretty much out of a job as a climatologist. You won't make an additional dime off of whether it is real or not. I don't have to ban myself because a study is not a scientific survey. There is no need to dispute a scientific study that is fatally flawed. If you watched the video, it explains why the "study" is bogus. It's a bogus study. It doesn't prove that 97% of climate scientists agree. It's a bogus study. There's nothing to disprove, because the study is fake. A scientific study is not the same thing as a survey. The climate always changes. The globe has warmed many times over hundreds of thousands of year. Which is why the climate models are so out of wack. Yet another fact that is disputed. There is an explanation. There is no global warming. The reason for our current climate is natural variations. It's undisputed scientific evidence that there is no global warming. Climate is weather. They study the same things. They are related fields. You really should watch the video.
The Milankovitch Cycles takes 26,000 years and affects neither climate or global warming over a 100 year time-frame. In fact, if I recall correctly, we're in a global cooling part of the Milankovitch Cycle which makes the recorded increases in both tropospheric and ocean temperatures contradictory to this cycle. Instead of disputing global warming it confirms that man is adversely affecting the natural Milankovitch Cycle. Actually weather refers to immediate and seasonal local conditions while climate refers to long term planetary conditions so they're not the same at all. For example increased global warming, reflected in climate change, can cause more isolated snowfall (winter weather) because more water evaporates from the ocean and turns into isolated snowfall in some locations that the "weatherman" forecasts. The weatherman does not report "global conditions" but instead focuses on local weather patterns that are highly variable. Global warming is planetary in nature and completely unrelated to local seasonal weather conditions.
This is absolute nonsense. 99.9% of climatologists are involved in the data collection and not the data analysis. The data is what it is and cannot be manipulated by the climatologist and the data records the significant temperature increases that can only be explained based upon the effects of man on our environment. Nature alone cannot generate the temperature increases we're seeing in the oceans nor can it cause the acidification of the oceans that's also measureable and being measured by the climatologists. The 0.1% of climatologists that analyze the data would be out of a job if they misrepresent the data being collected but they will never be out of a job by accurate analysis of the data regardless of what the data is. There are thousands of climatologists that would love to be able to report that AGW isn't happening but unfortunately the data doesn't support that position. "It's the data stupid" that drives the conclusion by every major scientific organization that AGW exists and not the politics of global warming. The scientists don't tell us what to do about the AGW but merely warn us of what's going to happen if nothing is done about it.
We are in a global warming period that known as an interglacial period. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago. We are in an ice age that has lasted 2.6 million years. Wild swings in temperatures are a part of the climate of the Earth and are natural and in fact the norm. What is not normal is the unusually stable period of climate that we are currently enjoying. Interglacial periods usually last about 12,000 years. Glacial periods last 80,000 to 100,000 years. The next glacial period could come about in the next 1,000 to 8,000 years. There is nothing we can do to stop it. But if we could warm the globe, it would be better than another glaciation. It was actually warmer during the Roman Warming Period, when wine was grown in the British Isles and grain in Scandinavia. Mankind flourished during this time. It was followed by the Little Ice Age. The periods of warming and cooling in the current interglacial period are what is called "natural variations". They were not caused by man, or by increased CO2 levels. One studies the local weather, the other global weather. The meteorologist is often wrong in their 3 day forecasts. But according to the religion of liberalism, a climatologist can tell you what the weather is going to be hundreds of years from now, and what it should have been were it not for man. A degree in climatology is only slightly more useless than a degree in Astrology.
Let's stick to one environmental scam at a time: NOAAgate: how ‘ocean acidification’ could turn out to be the biggest con since Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Not only can the data be manipulated, climatologists have been caught manipulating it. In fact they do it regularly especially if it helps their fake climate models. Not only is the data often manipulated, it is often inaccurate. One thing that cannot be manipulated is the satellite data which has shown that there has been no significant global warming for 18 years. This goes against 95% of the climate models of the climatologists. Why should the public care if 97% of the climatologists agree (they don't) when they are proven wrong 95% of the time? Even if the globe were warming, there would be no way of determining how much of the warming is natural variation, and how much, if any of it, is caused by man. Even if the globe were warming, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. Warm is better than cold. More people die from cold than from warm. More food can be grown in warm climates than in cold climates. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in the Earth's atmosphere. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be no life on Earth. More CO2 is better for plant growth. Plants grow bigger and faster with more CO2 in the atmosphere. You should watch the video.
There are no mathmatical equations relying on "natural causes" alone that account for the change in temperatures we've seen in the last 100 years that are many times greater than anything recorded over the last 1 million years. Sorry but the math doesn't support natural caused climate and global temperature changes. That's why there's virtually no dispute between climatologists. There would have to be conflicting analysis and that conflict doesn't exist. Nature alone cannot cause the increased temperatures we've experienced. Actually meteorologists are normally right and rarely wrong in their general predictions. If they say there's a 90% chance of rain tomorrow you should probably take an umbrella with you. What you're actually expressing is a disbelief in science because you don't understand the science and apparently don't want to.
There's no mathematical equations because there are too many variables. We don't have that good of an understanding of the climate to put it into a single mathematical equation. I don't know why you think that the slight increase over the past 100 (really the past 165 years) is not natural. The Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age before the Industrial Revolution. The warming started before that. How much do you think that the temperature has increased in the last 100 years? Look at the last 400,000 years: Now look at the last 5 million years: Do you not see these wild extreme fluctuations? It has happened for millions of years. Right, a 90% chance means there is a 10% chance they will be wrong. That is one day out. Three days out and the odds that they will be wrong increases. No, I am expressing a belief in known science, that being climate on Earth is driven by the Milankovitch Cycles. You are the one who completely blows off known science, the cycles of glaciation and interglacial periods, the historical fluctuations in global temperatures, none of which were caused by man. You are the science denier, not me. I understand the science, I understand that someday the glaciers will return and once again the polar ice will grow hundreds of feet thick and cover the northern hemisphere under a vast sheet of ice.
