Global warming IS a hoax...

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by hez7, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    It is funny how I have never denied there was a warming, but Roman so adamantly accuses me of saying things I never did. Had you read one of my post in this same page, you would have kept silent. I will quote it for you again:<dir>Please get this right: I am not saying that Earth has not warmed since 1860, as it did warm until recently. The warming was totally natural because it was recovering from an abnormal cold period caused by the occurrence of three “double solar minima” (Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton).</dir>

    Trends, as anything on this Earth, never stays too long in the same direction. Earth's climatic history says so. As I explained way up above, there was a warming trend as the result of a rebound from cld temps during the Little ice Age. We were heading to temperatures in the same range as those just before the Little ice Age, that is, the Medieval Warm Priod, sometimes called by climatologists (before the global warming hype) as the Little Climatic Optimum. Then came the IPCC and said those temperatures would be catastrophic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But now the warming trend seems to have stopped and a new cooling trend has started, as shown by satellite and radiosonde baloons readings. There is no arguing about this. There was a warming - now the word is cooling. For how long? Nobody knows. Wen will the cooling be at its peak? About the year 2030, whith the onset of the Double Gleissberg Solar Minimum.

    Will it really happen? Nobody can tell for sure, as no one can tell for sure there will be a catastrophic warming in the future. But if the Earth warms another 2º C, then we'll be having the same temperatures of the Medieval Warm period, or the Roman period of 500 before Christ - with no catastrophic effect on Earth. It is written down in history. No guesses here. Ancient records. That's all.

    Would you care to check the cooling trend in many states of the US since 1900 to 2000? See here: <a href=>Temperature Trends in the US - 1900-2000</a>

    Check cooling trend in Alabama (-1,17º F), Arkansas (-0,633º F), Georgia (-1.23º F), Illinis (-0.21º F), Indiana (-0.22º F), Kentucky (-0.04º F), Louisiana (-0.28º F), Mississippi (-1.09º F), Missouri (-0.804º F), North Carolina (-0.71º F), and other states show very little warming since 1900, in the range of 0.2º F to 0.9º F for a 100 year period!

    But when the trend is calculated since the 1950s or 1960s onwards, the trend is mostly cooling. Don't take my word for it. Just check it for yourself. You can make your own trends: select starting year, ending year, mean temps, maximums, or minimums, even rain trends. Go to the <a href=>U.S. Historical Climatology Network</a> data base and make your own calculations.

    You are up to a surprise.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. apolo Registered Senior Member

    Global warming. Is it or is it not caused by human activities?.During the socalled Viking age 800 t0 1150 we had global warming to a great extend. The vikings established collonies in Greenland and rased cattle and grain, which we cannot do today. They even sailed to Labrador and settled there without encountering icebergs on the way (according to the icelandic sagas)

    A PROMINENT SCIENTIST-PAUL ERLIK- IS TODAY IN THE FOREFRONT AMONG THOSE ADVOCATING the kyota accord- in 1975 he published a paper, saying in effect, we are in for a cooling periot, the growing season in England has been redused by 2/12 weeks, soon we will not be able to grow crops in northern Europe. This guy is today hyped on global warming. You go and figure.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. hez7 Registered Member

    EDUFER - "The post by hez7 is just a complete copy and paste from the last part of the page in the following link:"

    Which of the FACTS I presented are you disputing? What is an internal climate mechanism? Why is there no atmosphere on the moon?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    1) Not everything you presented were FACTS.

    2) I don't deny FACTS. I don't believe in hype, misinformation, twisting data, manipulation, etc, that's easily identified.

    3) Maybe it didn't have one when it was formed, and there was not living matter to make one. But most probably because teher is not enough gravity to hold gases, in case they are formed. Perhaps.
  8. hez7 Registered Member

    I don't support Kyoto...I'm directing people's attention to the scientific facts and consensus.

    Now, once more...what is an internal climate mechanism?
    Why is there no atmosphere on the moon?

    All I'm trying to do is see if you have the most "basic" understanding of what you claim is all a hoax.

    Don't forget, science is about quantification+theory...not just suspicions, and especially not junk science sponsored by Big Energy.

    Despite your longwinded post, you've said nothing....but don't worry, there's plenty of dummies here who will favour you because you have a title, no matter how little factual evidence you provide, IOW, the scientifically illiterate are on your side as they can't determine what a fact is nor are they aware of how the raw data has been utilized.
  9. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    We have never seen consensus on any scientific issue at any given time in mankind's history. While there is an issue in discussion, there can never be consensus. Consensus belongs to politics and it lacks any scientific meaning. Either you prove a theory beyond any reasonable doubt, or there will never be consensus on the theory.

    Even after many years (many decades, perhaps) of an apparent consensus on a given matter, new evidence proves the prior asumption or consensus was wrong. May I remind you the many hoaxes that had "consensus" among scientists? The Piltdown Man? Earth as the center of the Universe? Even the theory of relativity is being stripped from its prior "consensus". Friedrich Schleimann was going against the overwhelming "scientific" consensus of his time when he went to Turkey and unhearted Troy.

    When referring to climatic sciences, please never mention "scientific consensus". of course, there always be consensus among members of a brotherhood, as in the case of the IPCC, CRU, CSIRO, NOAA, NASA, GISS, etc, etc. They have become loaded with "politically correct" minded scientists, and they will allways listen, as RCA Victor doggie, to their "Master's Voice".

    And don't worry. I have the grasp of basic climatic science. I have no obligation to pass any exam because you have doubts. If the ocassion arises, you will prove me wrong - if I am worng - and if you have enough expertise in the field. Which I doubt, seeing your previous posts and the flimsy evidence of what you call FACTS.
  10. Tristan Leave your World Behind Valued Senior Member

    Science is like the justice system in reverse. Theories are wrong untill proven correct beyond a reasonable doubt... just thought Id throw that in

    (P.S. Be nice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


  11. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    Anybody read the latest National Geographic? NG is not exactly a fringe science rag that puts long-shot theories on its cover.

    People want to quibble about how much climate change is or is not ''natural'' or is or not human induced. Or if climate change is even happening or not. But if there is even a slight chance that humans are even slightly damaging the planet we inhabit -- seems like it might not be worth taking a chance on?!
  12. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    You are mentioning the Precautionary Principle. According to this nefarious principle, we need not any scientific proof of anything for taking measures against a risk or danger to mankind. The greens have taken this principle and imposed upon mankind as an Orwellian "Big Brother" giving orders that cannot be discussed - in order to push their agenda.

    This principle is <b>a two way road:</b> If trying to avoid catastrophic consequences for mankind derived froma any risk (ie: <b>global warming</b>) and fossil fuel usage is banned or limited as mandated by Kyoto Protocol, then the effects of this ban carry the risk of causing <b>unprecedented catastrophic damage to economies</b> in all countries in the world. So, following the Precautionary Principle, we must avoid the risk of curbing CO2 emissions by reducing fossil fuel usage.

    And as the principle states that <b>"there is no scientific proof needed"</b>, there is no need to supply evidence that the Kyoto Protocol will destroy world's economies. The sole idea of ruining economies all over the world mandates the use of this Precautionary Principle. Stupid, isn't it?

    As you can see, the precautionary principle is so stupid that if it entered a contest of stupid things, it would lose the contest - because of its utter stupidity.

    A parting thought: if mankind had applied the Precautionary Principle from the very beginning, we would still be hanging from tree branches, afraid of running the risk of going down to Earth and become the lunch of a saber-toothed tiger.

    A second parting thougth: if there were no risk involved, life would be utterly boring.
  13. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    That is an biased simplification of a common sense idea - which is that there is a LOT of evidence that we are in fact ruining our nest for easy habitation in many ways, climate change is just one of them.

    All species whos population and/or usage of their resources grows to an unsustainable level - eventually have mass dieoffs. Many have hoped that perhaps we are species who could break that pattern, one capable of planning far enough ahead to assure ever more pleasent futures. And such a hope depends on long term strategic thought and cooperation.

    Certainly if there were no risk involved nothing would ever get accomplished, but at the same time - if not for learning to choose the risks intelligently and manage our environment/surroundings intelligently, we bipeds would not have even made it this far.
  14. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Why did we bipeds got that far and other bipeds didn't? Velocirraptors and tiranosarus were bipeds that didn't made it, although they were agressive enough, a feature that mark successfully surving species. Perhaps the name of the game is: brains shaped and conformed to a specific kind of circumvoultions - lots of them. Some people say the number of cerebral circumvolutions is the secret for the human species success and survival.

    But <i>microgyria</i> - an excessive and abmormal number of circumvolutions in the brain is a characteristic of idiots, morons and utterly retarded pacients. So, what made the human species evolve and transform itself in the most successfull of all species? An interesting topic, alas, not for this thread.

    As for my theory on the Precautionary Principle being a biased simplification, the claim is not supported by proofs. Tell us why it is biased, and why it is a simplification of what... claims with no proofs leads nowhere but to a shrug.
  15. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    In fact, the evidence (and a hard one) is that we have been improving our habitat during the last 100 years at a fast pace. There is LOT of evidence that the air polution on London is now about 90% less than it was in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, etc. And the same applies to most cities in the western world, where pollution levels have been decreasing in a sustained way for decades now.

    Looks that the relationship between development and clean environment is a strong one. Developed countries have much better environmental conditions than underdevolped countries. It has been proved that once a country reaches a level of development high enough, it starts to think in taking care of tthe environment, while poorer countries can't afford to keep an cleaner environment because of a lack of whealth. We could say they must eat first - and then go to the theatre.

    Life expectancy in Europe and America <b>was about 45 years back in 1900.</b> Now we are well over 78. There must be something we humans <b>must have been doing quite well</b> - otherwise we would have disappeared long ago, as Neanderthals did. When I recall the way our parents and the rest of the people lived at the beginning of the 20th Century (as they remembered it), and see they way we live today, I cannot help but to think that mankind has improved enormously in just a half a century. And when I see how the world has improved during my lifetime, I just stare amazed at every new improvements in every known human activity - and envy the life our children will have.

    And, of course, what I see every day in my life goes against all the claims made by the Green Litany: <b>"The sky is falling, we're gonna die!".</b> Gimme a break!
  16. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Apolo: I made a google search on <b>Paul Erlik</b> and found nothing. Perhaps you meant: <b>"Paul Ehrlich"</b>, the notorious junk scientist from Stanford? The loony that predicted in 1968 that <i>"by 1990 famine will wipe the face of the Earth"</i>, and <i>" 2000, the U.S. population will be halved because of famines and starvation".</i>
  17. Gravity Deus Ex Machina Registered Senior Member

    Quick question Edufer: So humans are doing nothing shortsighted to our planet then? Lets look at an extreme example of something happening right now, just as a philisophical model to test that on.

    China and India have every right to attain the "American Dream" right?

    Even conservative scientists say that if the same percentage of Chinese were to have the same consumption patterns as Americans . . . we need a few more planets to keep up with the consumption rates.

    Is that pessamistic as well? Will magically we suddenly find more hydrocarbons, clean water, air . . . so that the Chinese can all drive Hummers too and get to grow fat and illiterate children just like us? Doesn't everybody deserve the 'American Dream'?
  18. hez7 Registered Member

    I presented a list of bad/extreme're the one assuming to know my political views.
    My interest is in the scientific details of climatology and whether AGW is plausible, and IMO it is, and it is currently UNDISPUTABLE{don't forget, I'm refering to fair dinkum disputation....there's plenty of nonsense in the junk science journals which people can use once they've ignored the basic facts, such as why there's no weather on the moon and what an internal climate mechanism is? actually I meant to ask why isn't there any "weather" on the moon?

    (PS. T i am being nice, no offence to you edufer - respect for this)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. hez7 Registered Member

    This paragraph is shit.
    All science has to do is explain and predict better than other assumed methods of knowing.

    Irrellevant, as there's risk factors associated with waiting decades+YOU have no superior theory, and subsequently CANNOT MAKE SUPERIOR predictions. me SUPERIOR explanation and prediction...or doesn't that count in your mind?

    Right, but of course the IPCC is a mega-peer-review process, they don't do science, they CHECK science, and possibily modern histories most comprehensive peer review supports AGW{after reviewing in excess of 20 000 research papers}.

    And it's your absurd opinion that IPCC, CSIRO and co are masterminding a socialist plot, ...I'm still trying to get basic science out of you whilst you flirt with absurdity.

    I believe you're scientifically trained, but I also believe you to be scientifically and philosophically is knowing via empircism/maths/stats, not regurgitating junk website nonsense.
    Now you can embarrass me by answering what an internal climate mechanism is and also why there's no weather on the moon?...or are you content to prove to all and sundry that your so-called knowledge of climatology is virtually useless??
  20. alty Brainy Burd! Registered Senior Member

    Hez7 - science is about disproving theories, not proving them.

    That is the most basic knowledge a science-learned person has. You keep babbling inanely about proving theories and making them, yet the real science is DISproving theories

    No weather on the moon - the moon's gravity is not high enough to keep an atmosphere so the solar wind's dispersed any gases that there may have been present in the moon's early years.

    No atmosphere = no climate.
  21. duendy Registered Senior Member

    when i look at this complex problem of global warming...complex ANd disturbing, because of conflicting opinion, yet felt changes all around, and seeing same round the world----i look at a more genralist picture.
    i see people--culture work victims-i callem--who are following in big Brother's, propert developing houses, and concreting over gardens for cars....the same old shit that the big boys are doing -ie., buidling up, property development, cutting down trees, filling in all available space (EVEN building on schoolkid's p[laying spaces!), till all we seem to get is concrete and the occasional tree with wire around it. such is law'n order

    so i am very aware of this cripplingly impoversihed relationsip with Nature all round....from work-victim to big shot

    in this climate is it so unlikely that we are REALLY screwing the balance up. is it plausible?
  22. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Short answer Gravity: <b>Are you an extraterrestrial? Do you live in this planet?</b> It seems that you are doing nothing to the planet; you are passing through life without leaving not even a trace. Of course, the blame is always on other people. And as ususal, other people must take responsibility for all that's going wrong around us.

    Yes, Gravity, humans (including you) <b>are doing things</b> to this planet, some of them shortsighted, most of them quite good for mankind's survival. And your "conservative scientists" seem to be Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian pals. That argument was presented many, many years ago by the <b>Club of Rome</b> and the Ehrlichs -- and Julian Simon, first, and then reality (and now Bjorn Lomborg) demolished the argument.

    You should read more studies on agriculture improvements, increasing yields, shrinking arable area and increasing food production, less energy input for more food output, decreasing energy input for more mineral and oil production, etc.

    According to your teachers, 30 years ago there was just 30 years oil supply. Right now, instead of oil having run out as predicted, we have a 45 year supply at current consumption levels - and this is not counting on oil shales and oil sands in many countries (as Canada) that assures another 500 year supply of oil. In the meantime, we would have defeated the <b>Green vision</b> and obtained control over <b>nuclear fusion</b> for providing (almost) endless energy for mankind needs.

    BTW, the claim that for the Chinese attaining US consumption patterns we would need another two or three extra planets is based on faulty statistics and biased studies and projections, much before 1979 China's <b>"one child policy"</b>, much before the birth rate for fertile women had dropped in China from 6 to 2 (by 1978, before their "one child policy"). This should be good news for you, as it would drive away your fears and neurosis about impending environmental catastrophes. You should take Chicken Little and make a nice stew "a la casserole" with him. But I guess many people like to get scared (horror and scare movies, Freddy, The Day After Tomorrow?) and live waiting for all those catastrophes Prophets of Doom are constantly throwing at us. Not even one has become true - nor even close.

    Water shortage? Desertification? Forests wiped out? Coral reefs bleaching away? Energy shortage? Ozone depletion? Catastrophic Global warming? Sea levels rise? - None of these myths have gone further than being a <b>tremendous media hype or a simple hoax.</b> Don't worry. We are living now much better than 50 years ago, and will continue improving our living standards. Even those underdevolped countries that slowly will get free from the neocolonial status they are presently suffering. Many countries that have improved their living conditions (as Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, etc, and some South American as Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, etc) are now environment conscious, and at the same time they are increasing their agricultural and industrial production without harming the environment.

    Let's be optimistic, yeah? But let us not lose sight of things that migth be going wrong and can be fixed. Yes?

    BTW - Hez7, welcome back David Mayes! We were missing you and your UNDISPUTED GHG theory!
  23. hez7 Registered Member

    ok who the hell is he? lol Care to expand?

Share This Page