Global Warming: The Greatest Hoax in the History of Science

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Evaporation off the ocean.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Garry Denke

    You should post more often. It's a shame that in a 7 page thread, yours is one of only a few scientific responses.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    I concur. Garry Denke is probably one of a few people around here qualified to speak on the matter.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
  8. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    How many people would that be? 40? 50?
     
  9. boppa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    this is the second time ive seen you make this claim yourself...

    if it is a solar system wide trend (and it could possibly be so ie jupiters moon temps rising, saturn rising etc etc) then focusing on earth TO THE EXCLUSION of all else is bad science.
    trying to reduce global temps when it is (possibly) an external problem causing the rise in the first place is a bit(??) self defeating ie if it is an external influence causing the rise then NO amount of greenhouse gas reductions will cause a fall to the original values

    hence good science will look at ALL posibilites, regardless of politics of any leaning left or right(unfortunately imho this is not happening at the moment)

    its always good to clean up our act- but it is not good to cripple our ability to sustain our society in the process
    if it does happen that a global warming is happening but due entirely(or mostly or even partially) to natural causes, but we cripple our ability to adapt to major climate changes due to ill thought out policy changes that affect the global economy to the degree that it simply couldnt afford to support major infrastructure/population shifts, then population loses would be enormous
    it is possible to be both `green' and `technological' at the same time, but it seems to me to be impossible to be `green', `technological' and `politically correct' at this point in time...

    focussing on one viewpoint to the exclusion of all else (ie earth or nothing)could imho end up with us at the second option.....
     
  10. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    That list is amusing. Whilst there are some genuine climatologists on it, it also includes the infamous Khilyuk and Chilingar, who made up possibly one of the worst scientific papers ever published.
    Details here:
    http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html

    Finally, I can find a few dozen people with biology degrees who think that Evolution is wrong. The mere existence of a few people who disagree with the vast majority of other scientists engaged in the field in question means very little.
     
  11. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    By this logic every scientific revolution that has ever occured would be declared null and void...seeing as they all start among the few.
     
  12. paulfr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    227
    Acid Rain
    Ozone Hole
    Population Bomb [circa 1970]
    and now ...
    Global Warming/Climate Change

    the doomsayers are back again.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Those are all still real threats to human existence.
     
  14. Atom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    928
    I'm afraid that this is plain pseudo-scienctific nonsense. If the Solar System is heating up - it isnt actually - then why pray tell, is the Moon showing no signs of warming whatsoever despite being the one place where we can take highly accurate measurments instead of pure guesses.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    The consensus on anthro global warming is recent - it isn't a conventional wisdom of hidebound and politically conjoined establishment scientists, but a conclusion large numbers of competent researchers were driven to by the evidence, just in the past few years. The other hypotheses - solar irradiance increases, sunspots, natural cycles of unknown cause, etc - have been considered and examined, not ignored.

    Most of the data supporting CO2 accumulation as the, or a, primary cause of the recent warming trend was gathered by researchers investigating other things, for other reasons. It was not obtained by researchers who got funding to go out and prove any particular thesis.

    The current political administration of the US is hostile to conclusions of anthro warming, has made efforts to suppress reports supporting it, and is hardly likely to preferentially fund biased research supporting it.

    The current major private sources of large scale geographical and climatological research are hostile to conclusions of anthro warming, and several have preferentially funded "research" or analysis biased against it, as well as publically offering large sums of money for data and analysis contradicting it (Exxon's offer of ten large in prize money for even scraps of data or analysis is just one of several biasing attempts).

    The economic and political forces that bias research in the US are hostile to conclusions of anthro warming. If there's political or economic bias operating, it's not likely to be favoring conclusions of anthro warming.
     
  16. boppa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    interesting you should mention the moon......
    nasa has something to say about earthshine thats rather interesting

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0528earthshine.html

    The data showed a steady decrease in Earth's albedo from 1984 to 2000. Between 1995 and 1996, Earth dimmed even more sharply. The data were consistent with satellite measurements of changing global properties. From 1997 to 2000, Earth continued to dim. The researchers suggest, during this time period, the decreases in Earth's reflectance may be related to an observed accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures

    yay global warming exists!!

    but then.....

    From 2001 to 2003, Earth brightened to pre-1995 values


    bummer.....

    im certainly not against global warming research- but im very much against politicised research- and currently there are two extreme camps and very few `in the middle' doing imho unbiased research
    to me there seems to be the strrident`its us,its us,its ALL us' camp and the `its not us at all,come hell or high waters it couldnt be us(so continue on as usual)' camp

    what i would like to see is all the grandstanding b.s. politics taken out of it(and the media and all the rest of the bloodsuckers)- simply ignore the whole issue by everyone except the people who are doing it!!

    let the real scientists get on with their job, find out the data,do the sums, come up with a yay or nay and then put their findings into action..

    thats what i want to see happen

    and as for my pseudo-scienctific nonsense- well if the possiblity that it is a solar system wide process (which is a possibility ie pluto's overextended warming process,titan,mars,saturn,jupiter could show that it is a possibility)
    disregarding that possibilty and ignoring all data from extraearth data sources while repeating the mantra `its all us, its all us,it is ALL US' is imho hardly scientific
    in fact its almost......




    psuedo-scientific (lol)
     
  17. boppa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

    loath as i am to use wikipedia as a source it does have something that i personally find interesting
    (it does link to the original studies which is good)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

    The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. see Global Warming).

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Proxies.png/300px-Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

    The lower solar activity during the Maunder Minimum also affected the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The resulting change in the production of carbon-14 during that period caused an inaccuracy in radiocarbon dating until this effect was discovered.

    interesting how http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png shows a much higher level of sunspot activity since 1900 and peaking in the later half of the 20th centuary

    of course something that required `quote... The lower solar activity during the Maunder Minimum also affected the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth.'
    couldnt possibly effect the earths climate could it??

    nahh its us its us-its always US

    The resulting change in the production of carbon-14 during that period caused an inaccuracy in radiocarbon dating until this effect was discovered.

    (hmm what could have changed c14 during this time??)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

    (yup geocentralism is alive and well-unfortunately)
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2007
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,091
    Uh, yeah, that stuff is known. Your point?

    There are a lot of other possible explanations for the observed warming trend, after all - explanations that (presuming dinos didn't burn coal) have accounted for all the other warming phases of the past, and are still possible driving factors today - it's just that none of them seem to fit the patterns we see.

    For example, as far as anyone has figured out a hotter sun should have its greatest effects during summer days at lower latitudes, instead of during winter nights at higher latitudes as we observe. A sunspot effect should fluctuate with the sunspot cycle, as we do not observe. The rate of temp increase from a proposed cause should approximate the effects of that proposed cause as it is assumed in the past, rather than show up at three times the rate with less of the cause present. And so forth.

    These other possible factors, collectively, all of them, account for the 10% probability of error in the ICCP's very conservative estimation of anthro causation. That is a pretty high probability of error - but then the situation, if the 90% pans out, is pretty serious and needs attention.
     
  19. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    That's all you true believers have.. Ad hominem attacks and nothing more.
     
  20. 3.14159265358979323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    120
    You know, I despise liars like you.. I really do..
     
  21. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Well, it's true. Denial of climate science is driven by political ideologues.
     
  22. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    trusting politics to designate the thoughts of another instead of the actual factual summation of the research??

    that's an illusion of a REPUBLIC. good or bad the fact still stands.
     
  23. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    oh the irony!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page