AGW is myth- its all for the money!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by mello, Oct 31, 2013.

  1. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I find it really funny that most of the public fell for this rubbish. They can put anything on the news and you accept it.

    I think i will always remember people trying to ridicule me for saying what i said when gore came out with this rubbish big time. Amazing how the vast majority believed that snake oil salesman, without even thinking.

    I t will always to me be the example of how media is so powerful to convince the public of anything. Makes you wonder if they thought they would get away with this rubbish, what lies have they told the public before and they sucked it all up.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    The media isn't very good at representing science. So what you're saying is the media have lied about what scientists have discovered.

    How does that mean the science itself is "rubbish"? If it does mean that, how can you trust any science? Why aren't you living in a cave?
    Oh wait, you are . . .

    In your cave, you can only watch "news" on a TV, your main source of rubbish, and if you try to access real scientific articles on the internet, the thought police arrest you. Right?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Andre Registered Senior Member

    No that's not the problem. The problem is to follow up on the changes. You could say that the ice coring of Greenland and Antarctica is at the basis of global warming alarmism, when CO2 and isotopes (allegdly paleo thermometers) made large changes together. The big Al Gore triumph. But then it turned out that actually CO2 lagged isotopes with a couple of hundred years. Sure there was the ad hoc adaptation of feedback, but that has never been explained satisfactory. It has been this problem that produced a lot of climate sceptics, as the major AGW proof was gone. Joanna Nova for instance was one of them. But you can't keep up with all those new facts if you just rely on the news media. You have to dig into the details.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Those damn rebublicans will fall for anything won't they. A poll from April of this year shows that a majority of people who are republican or republican leaning believe climate change is occuring. Whats next fercrissake? Will republicans stop believing that the people and dinosaurs lived at the same time????
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, the basis of global warming alarmism is the media echo chamber - same as the basis of global warming denialism.

    Ice cores are one of the aspects of the SCIENCE of climate change.

    Right. To put it in layman's terms, the dinosaurs didn't have SUV's.

    That was not a major AGW proof. The major AGW proofs are the following:

    1) Our emissions of CO2 have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat within the atmosphere.

    Both are provable. You have to disprove one of those two to disprove the basis of climate change science.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. Heck, you lapped it right up! You fell for the media-driven denier line.
  10. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Care to back that up? Or did Spencer Weart lie?

    That looks a lot the fallacy of the restricted choice. How about adding:

    3) the increased radiative properties of the atmosphere cause it to radiate long wave energy more easily.

    4) increased absorption of IR in the lower atmosphere causes more convection which moves heat and latent energy to higher levels in the atmosphere where it can outradiate more easily.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. Here are Spencer's own words:
    In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

    In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

    In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

    Nothing about ice cores all the way through the 1960's, long after the theory of climate change had been developed.

    Well, greenhouse gases do the opposite; that's how they work. (They reduce re-radiation of IR.) However we can test this pretty easily - use satellites to observe incoming and outgoing radiation. Over the past 20 years scientists have done this, and seen a gradual decrease in amount of energy being re-radiated into space - without much of a change in incoming radiation.

    Also a potential theory, but contraindicated by the actual scientific evidence.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    He meant that people who are unable to ask skeptical questions - which ability includes the willingness to receive answers, of course, without which no actual question exists - are vulnerable to a wide variety of specious rhetorical implication and confident bogus assertion. This vulnerability you have illustrated perfectly, with various links to various sources of well-funded specious rhetorical implication and confidently bogus assertion, which you are unable to fend off for yourself in part because you can't actually ask skeptical questions.

    Your question about the implications of the lag between carbon dioxide levels and the onset of warming after past ice ages, for example of question, has been answered for you several times just on this forum. But it turns out to be not a question but a belief of yours, not subject to inquiry and improved comprehension as Sagan felt was important.

    The recent Curry link, for example of link, does not actually - underneath the carefully phrased innuendo - support any doubt whatsoever about AGW or its human underpinnings. Had you the ability to question that blog article, in particular its innuendo and actual argument, you would have realized that for yourself, and not posted it here as if it supported your claims on this thread. Likewise with the Joanna Nova link - even a little bit of skeptical query into what she is talking about would have revealed to you, as it does to those clicking the link, that it has nothing to do with this thread and probably little to do with anything outside some country club scandal in England. Just on the gossip level, did it even occur to you to inquire after the influences and backgrounds of the other five - the voting majority - of the Council at issue? And so forth.
  13. Andre Registered Senior Member

    well, one couldn't hardly hope for a better illustration. Thanks very much. iceaura
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    "alarmism" is a bogus term, coined to shift the blame away from the guilty mind of denial and the Big Money that sponsors it.

    "Alarm" is OK as long it doesn't become a slogan. At that point, the conversation degenerates and loses its place in the Earth Science forum.

    Alarm is not new. There were signs that anthropogenic greenhouse gases might be altering the climate well over 100 yrs ago. "Concern" was one of the motivating reasons for establishing the first CO[sub]2[/sub] monitoring stations over 50 years ago. Within a year or so later, it was already clear that anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] was elevating atmospheric concentrations at "alarming" rates.

    In those days the culture wars were being duked out in the killing fields of Joe McCarthy, John Birch and George Wallace. No one had yet invented the anti-science / pro-fundamentalist / pro-energy propaganda machines that are so common today. Therefore there were none of the numb-nuts reactions to scientific research we see now, although the evidence for anthropogenic damage was first elevated to the attention of the White House during a democratic administration, namely, LBJ's--who ordered funding for research. Nixon, acting on the tide of public outrage from the growing evidence (largely over pollution in general) created the EPA and reorganized the government scientific agencies studying the air and water. Most notable was the creation of NOAA from its prior roots in the US Geodetic Survey, the US Oceanographic Agency and Weather Bureau, with assistance from the US Bureau of Weights and Measures and the military.

    There is nothing new about this. The only thing that is new is the war on science.

    This is why the following remark is a crock:

    The details are in the scientific journals. Until you can explain the history of the discovery of the greenhouse effect, from the time of Fourier until the formation of NOAA, you will never understand what the scientific rationale for creating the IPCC was in the first place. The rest is wild speculation and an attempt to make the science look like it was invented by Al Gore, or at least in his lifetime, which is sheer propaganda.

    Since this is a science thread, the expectation is that the discussion will hinge on the actual science involved. That requires an understanding of the history of the salient discoveries. Without that background, the propaganda just perpetuates itself ad nauseum.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2013
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member


    My last post to you was this and you choose that for a witty come back?? Are you going to respond to that post at all, or keep pretending it's not there?

    I mean, what do you think, that carbondioxide behaves differently when you, for example, look up at the sky versus across a room?

    By the way, I had been going to mention this later when I had more information, but, you realize the very things that you keep talking about have been known about and accounted for in the models since the '60s?
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Because a molecule of Carbon dioxide totally knows which direction to radiate heat in, right?
  17. Andre Registered Senior Member

    I understand and agree with everything here, don't worry.
  18. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Andre, are you still around old chap?
  20. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Until his Condo in Florida is under water? Until his favorite Island where he can use all that Viagra on no longer exists(and becomes a reef)?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Hopefully he'll get crushed trying to surf the reef.
  22. Username Registered Senior Member

    97% of climate scientists agree that global climate change is occurring and is due to humans:

    The following is from: - Bold for emphasis.

    “Solar irradiance

    It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
    Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps. But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

    • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
    • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
      [*] Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.”

    NASA has an entire page devoted to global climate change data and information.

    Main Page:
    Key indicators:
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    You ridicule yourself.

Share This Page