>>>MOD ALERT<<< It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale

So your proof is that you yourself put a fake name on the list therefore everyone else is also a fake? I don't see that fake name on the list. They must have developed a vetting method to keep spoilers from trying to discredit it. Why would people like you do that in the first place? Because that is what you have to do to prove your point? The only one you are discrediting when you do that is your own AGW conspiracy cult. I'll take a pass on trying to discredit 32,000 scientists one at a time. I have better things to do with my time, but you are welcome to have a go at it.

 

Actually, the link between global temperature and [CO2] has been around much longer. I posted this a couple of weeks ago:

"Birthday of Svante Arrhenius (2/19/1859), first scientist to propose AGW
Today marks the birthday of Svante Arrhenius (2/19/1859), the famous Swedish scientist and Nobel laureate, who is most well known for his discovery of a quantitative relationship between the rate of chemical and biological reactions and temperature (the famous Arrhenius equation), and his contributions to acid-base theory (every first year Chemistry students is tortured with the Arrhenius theory of acids and bases).

What is less well know is that Arrhenius, in his later years, also worked on climate science. In fact, Arrhenius may have been the first to establish an equation that relates atmospheric [CO2] to radiative forcing. He also proposed that human activity affects atmospheric [CO2], and, thus, global temperatures. His greenhouse law is very simple:

Click image for larger version.

Name: c2a0e92291f118a8258a19b8fa58bb07.png
Views: 0
Size: 758 Bytes
ID: 33645

Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and &#916;F is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha (&#945 has been assigned a value between five and seven (from Wikipedia).

What are the opinions on Arrhenius? Genius scientist, who predicted climate change way before it was accurately measurable, or liberal whacko who was funded by government and wanted to control other people?

IMO: I am not a proponent of policy action in response to climate change, as I think that 1) the problem will cure itself when fossil fuels run low and 2) proposals such as CO2 capture are just energetically not feasible. That leaves energy conservation efforts, which I support.

However, the evidence of [CO2] being linked to global temperature, together with the fact that man DOES contribute to atmospheric [CO2] is, in my view, indisputable. The dispute should rather be on the policy response or lack thereof to that knowledge. Here is the link to the original work from 1896:

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1...m18-173546.pdf"

Of course, the post received no responses because:

1) The discussion is bout money and not science.
2) Therefore, it is impossible to attack an icon of science and Nobel laureate as a socialist hack who is only after government grants.
3) Most science "experts" on here had probably never heard of Arrhenius.

 

all this proves is my earlier statement about the planet going through changes since its creation, some 5 billion years ago. Just because we can track it, doesn't negate the fact that this planet's climate has been, and still is, changing. Not because of us, but because it is the nature of this planet. All he's done is tossed together some numbers and called it a day.
In other words, with or without Man, this planet is gearing up for another change. Granted Man hasn't helped, but we are not the cause, we are circumstantial

 

But...but...but...he wasn't a climate scientist! Isn't that what we hear daily?

A possibility, just like the current hypothesis which the models are based on, which are as faulty as his assessment and continue to deviate from observed science. Let's say that one model run got close to the observed temperature and like current tech, there are 100s of runs but let's stick to 100. That is a failure rate of 99%. That is what the CAGWers are calling a sure thing.

Patient: What are the odds of me surviving if I get this surgery?
Doctor: 1%
Patient: Great, let's do it!

 

It was predominantly called global warming until very recently when so many cold weather events started raining or should I say snowing on the global warming parade.

 

in other words you cannot dispute a single word in my post. Going by your post I guess the US is not part of global. I am also aware that Europe had a mild winter, defying the forecasts of extreme cold and snow while Australia had a heat wave.

Seems as if Australia is the epi center of the global warming religion, which surprises me considering that Australians have been enduring heat waves ever since the first prison ship arrived there. One would think that after a couple of hundred years of extreme weather you guys would be used to it. Raising your energy costs and shipping all of your coal to India and China to enrich their economy is not going to change the weather patterns in Australia. It will make a few of your fat cat politicians and lazy pseudo scientists a few bucks but is that worth killing more of your average citizens through energy poverty?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/au...hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/

 

It was checked and the more obvious fakes removed (like Donald Duck) but there are still a LOT of names on there that a) are not scientists b) are not even alive

The offer still stands to do some independent verification - pick some names at random (or I will if you like) and Google them. See if they Google as being scientists

 

Not true. The articles contained science. You're the one listening to politics. I've
said nothing. As a matter of fact, you haven't provided any information that
refutes anything I've posted.

And your "could not be bothered" statement was about as big of a dodge as a
person can make.

You have nothing except the usual low information drivel. And yes, they;re the
the ones creating the conspiracy of agw.

 

Straw man

No one has ever implied that hot days did not happen in the past
Secondly - you know it never ceases to amaze that people do not see the pea when it is in plain sight

It is there SOME of the highest temps

And there are no temperatures later than 1998 - cherry pick much???

ONE of the temperatures she has recorded is from an early Australian Explorer who might have bloody dropped the thermometer in his tea for all we know

- - - Updated - - -

Au contraire I am refusing to listen to the politics

Give me a nice unbiased source and I will look but the vast majority of right wing news outlets cherry pick from science papers and I am sick and tired of spitting out the pips

 

I have followed the promotion of "global warming" for years. I recall the reporting on a study that was released ten or so years ago supposedly claiming the approval of 2,500 or so "scientists". The 7 page executive summary laid out the conclusion verifying "global warming". It seems, though that when the actual data was examined in the study, the data contradicted the conclusion made by one or the other of the politicized "scientists" who wrote the executive summary. It also seems that when the names of those whose signatures were on the report were examined, only a few were actually climate scientists. The majority were things like professors of english literature, anthropology, political science, modern art, etc.

People who believe in the religion seem to be of the opinion that whatever it takes to gain converts is justified because the goal is so important.

 

So I read the news reports of continuing record cold waves. More and worse snow and ice in the Northeast. The ice cover on the great lakes is reported to be the highest in recorded history. We are having record cold and snow this late in the winter here in North Texas. Last week there was snow reported in 49 of the 57 states.

If there were "global warming" shouldn't it be like....warmer?

I haven't seen the believers in the AGW hoax explanation for this. But surely....somehow....someway, all of this cold is normally expected "climate change" that just proves absolutely that its "warming".

I can't wait. I want to ride that unicorn.

 

So, in summary some bloke sometime said something about someone who may or may not have written something that someone else disagreed with
Have I got that right???

Mate there have been hundreds of reports, thousands of documents tens of thousands of research papers written in and around climate change over the last 100 - 150 years
So, which one are you referring to?

 

As this thread has gone past the thread limit, I have to close it.

Feel free to restart if you choose, otherwise, thank you all for your participation.