AGW-Anthrogenic Global Warming

[IH3444]

According to your theory agreement with Dick Cheney, then IF there was only a 1% chance of Iraq and ****** being a problem, then invasion and war is justified.


Thanks for turning your flame down.

Why are climate scientist destroying data, and "tricking" what data they have?

What do they have to gain? Well funding, power, and fame aside?

 

[kenstrac]

Google - public data
Maybe this is why the CO2 has gone up.A more direct approch would be to take turns breathing,by breathing only 8 hrs a day we can cut the CO2 down to 1959's numbers

 

[keegs]

According to your theory agreement with Dick Cheney, then IF there was only a 1% chance of Iraq and ****** being a problem, then invasion and war is justified.


Thanks for turning your flame down.

Why are climate scientist destroying data, and "tricking" what data they have?

What do they have to gain? Well funding, power, and fame aside?

I don't know that climate scientists are destroying and fudging data. And I certainly don't think they're all engaged in that kind of thing.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier IH but I do work with allot of very smart people and when it comes to getting them to agree on something I think I'd rather try to herd cats.

I'm sure that there are many climate scientists who have doubts and concerns about the methodology being used to model earth's climate. But I also think there are enormous financial interests in maintaining the status quo with regard to how we source the world's energy needs.

 

[keegs]

Google - public data
Maybe this is why the CO2 has gone up.A more direct approch would be to take turns breathing,by breathing only 8 hrs a day we can cut the CO2 down to 1959's numbers

ken....you go first...then let us know how it worked out for you.

 

[ToadHill]

Plants just love CO2. If we are worried about cutting down the rain forest, the CO2 will cause it to grow all over again. The earth has a way of returning to the state it likes. In 1900 less than 10% of New York state was forested. In 2000 over 60% of the state is forest land, and I'm sure that is true in many eastern states.

The farmers quit farming and nature returns to what it likes.

As I heard a scientist from Cornell University say one time. We all need to hear our homes with wood, it's the only carbon neutral material going. The trees take in CO2 and give off O2. When they are burned they give off CO2 but only to the extent of that which they have absorbed thereby a carbon neutral fuel.

 

[EddieWalker]

Eddie,

What do you suppose would motivate the vast majority of the world's climate scientists to engage in a conspiracy such as the one you describe?

It is not the "vast majority of the world's climate scientists" that are doing this. As we can now read in the stolen emails, it's a core of just a few dozen that are doing this and pressuring others to fall in line, or to use the media to ridicule them.

There are over 31,000 American Scientist, with over 9,000 of them with PHD's that disagree with Global Warming. Newsmax.com - 31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

As to why they have lied about this, I can only guess that it's a combination of really "wanting" to believe it regardless of what the evidence was, the prestige of being the worlds experts, and of course, the money.

I sometimes wonder if Al Gore really believes what he's saying, or if it's just his way of making money and being a big shot. He comes across as a die hard believer, but then he's making tens of millions of dollars off of it, and is one of the worlds biggest personal poluters. While there might be others, he stands out as the biggest hypocrite out there. And then there is his refusal to debate anybody on the facts that he claims are proven. It would be real easy to win every debate if this was true and further his cause. So why doesn't he debate anybody?

His movie has nine major lies in it according to British Courts, and they have to be explained before the school children watch his movie.

Just this week, he lied about the emails in saying that they are all ten years old, and that there isn't anything in them that discredits the science of global warming. The most recent of those emails are just a month old.

Last week, my 12 yeard old daughter had to write a paper on why global warming is bad and what we can do to stop it. My wife and I spent the week before looking all of this up. There is an amazing amount of information out there. Some is wacky, but if you go to the governement sites, the university sites and the scientific sites, you'll find that it's all documented and refrenced. We read the articles and then did searches for those people listed and who conducted the study. It's truly amazing how easy it is to find out, and how rediculous all the claims are.

She wrote about the global warming hoax and how the science is so corrupted that nobody actually knows what is going on with the planet. She backed up everthing with refrences and footnotes. The teacher is a believer, but was forced to give our daughter a 103 because she received extra credit on top of her grade. We've gone to the Super Intendent before, and were ready to go again, but in the end, we didn't have to.

Just for fun, if you really want to learn about all of this, do some searches for yourself. I won't influence you on where to look, just start reading and look for references. You'll notice that those pushing global warming tend to rely on personal attacks, scare mongering and broad claims. While that's been a very effective method to get your point of view across, it's no longer as effective as it used to be. Especially now that we know from the emails, that's exactly how they were able to silence the critics in the scientific comunity.

Eddie

 

[dmccarty]

I ran into this article yesterday. American Thinker: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Very interesting reading on how the data has been manipulated and falsified to give the desired result.

Last year? Earlier this year? One of the organizations talking about AGW has been caught twice with leaving out data that would show that global temperature had not gone up as much as they had stated. I wish I could remember the name of the organization. It would be interesting if they are the same as the ClimateGate group.

CRU, the group at the center of ClimateGate did not loose their data. They THREW it away during a building move. They said they did not have the space in the new offices to store the data. REALLY? They through out research that represents years of work and effort because they could not rent storage? REALLY? The man at the center of the CRU has received millions to study GW and he could not spend some tiny bit of that money preserving the data? REALLY?

What is interesting in the previously mentioned link is the discussion on how computer models are used to guess at worldwide temperatures. Back in the 80s when I still watched network news, there was a story on global warming and the use of models to predict future wet areas and desserts. The model in the report was full of gloom and doom such as the bread basket of the US would be a desert as would other areas in the world.

The problem with the model was that if they put in known data. Data representing the world as it was at the time. The model could not show the climate as it existed. So how in the heck could it be accurate forecasting the future? It could not.

People always talk about the vested money interests who are against AGW as if there are not vested money interests who support AGW. A certain famous person has made millions because of AGW. He has a 5 BILLION dollar investment fund driven by his preaching about AGW. Then there is the movie and his prize. He just got a 500 million dollar loan from the US government to build electric cars.

Yet he does not practice what he preaches. Go search for BioSolar One which is a 100 foot long boat. He says it only uses 4 gallons of diesel a month on a typical weekend. Typical means the engines just exercise them self at the dock but the of course the statement leads people to believe the yacht is very energy efficient. Supposedly the yacht will use two gallons per hour put putting around the lake which I find interesting given that my 48 HP engine use about a gallon per hour. I find it hard to believe that a yacht that big is going to be able to move at cruise speed for two GPH.

But this famous person has bought carbon credits to offset his climate killing behavior. I guess that makes him feel better. Seems like Martin Luther railed and nailed against being able to pay cash to absolve sin.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

There is a lot of 'cherry picking' of data going on here. No doubt by people on both sides of the issue.

It's hard to ignore melting ice sheets though, and that is an observable fact, it's rather easy to distinguish between ice and water It isn't subject to interpretation.

I try to use common sense. There are many indicators the earth's climate is warming from insects to ice. Whether people influence it seems to be the issue. It would be nice to know the total CO2 and other gases injected into the atomosphere annually expressed as 40,000 lb tractor-trailer loads. That would be a good perspective. I'll try to find a ballpark number.

Some scientist's think increased CO2 would be 'good' for us apparently. I want no part of that academic ivory-tower inspired science experiment. Thanks but no thanks. That sort of thinking always leads to big problems.
Dave.

 

[Wayne County Hose]

Russian scientists have proven that the surface of Mars has gone through identical heating and cooling phases as Earth. Yet, this has gone unreported. The media will assign 11 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin's book, but they won't fact check anything to do with global warming. How's that hoax and change working out for you?

BTW, AL Gore said on tv a couple weeks ago that the earth was a million degrees a few kilometers down. Excuse me Al, but the surface of the sun is only 6,000 degrees. This also goes unreported.

 

[dave1949]

Russian scientists have proven that the surface of Mars has gone through identical heating and cooling phases as Earth. Yet, this has gone unreported. The media will assign 11 reporters to fact check Sarah Palin's book, but they won't fact check anything to do with global warming. How's that hoax and change working out for you?

BTW, AL Gore said on tv a couple weeks ago that the earth was a million degrees a few kilometers down. Excuse me Al, but the surface of the sun is only 6,000 degrees. This also goes unreported.

Mars? I don't live there. What's that got to do with anything? The core issue is - can the biological elements we depend on for life on Earth continue to support us in the face of rapid climate change? That's the only question that is relevant at this point - unless you know of an all-night diner on Mars - not fact-checkers, Al Gore et al.

 

[EddieWalker]

I don't know that climate scientists are destroying and fudging data. And I certainly don't think they're all engaged in that kind of thing.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier IH but I do work with allot of very smart people and when it comes to getting them to agree on something I think I'd rather try to herd cats.

I'm sure that there are many climate scientists who have doubts and concerns about the methodology being used to model earth's climate. But I also think there are enormous financial interests in maintaining the status quo with regard to how we source the world's energy needs.

It's coming out that they have in fact fudged the data to get the results that they want. While I agree that not all of them are doing this, those who are in charge sure are.

Hot Air Blog Archive NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases

This also includes NASA, who's in allot of hot water over their changes in what year was the hottest on record.

NASA BACKTRACKS ON 1998 WARMEST YEAR CLAIM

On Co2

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / Debunking the CO2 Feedback Myth - by Leonard Weinstein, ScD

And one of the best articles on how they fudged the date, read

Climategate reveals 'the most influential tree in the world' - Telegraph

It's all coming out. Every day, more and more information about how they peer reviewed each other, hid and changed the original data and cherry picked what data they needed to get the results they wanted.

Just ask why they destroyed the orignal data at the University of East Anglia. For years, they refused to provide this date to the scientist who were requesting it under Britains version of the Freedom of Information Act. They wanted to do independent studies to see if they were right. Science is only sound when it can be duplicated, and one of the biggest red flags to Global Warming science is that it cannot be duplicated. Junk in, junk out.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

Remember, just because allot of people believe something, that doesn't mean it's correct. Science is not about a concensus, it's only about the facts. If you have to lie and fabricate your "facts," then it's not true. AGW is not true.

The planet warms and cools on it's own. It's been hotter in the past then it is now. NASA has admitted that it was warmer in the 1930's then it is today. Why was it warmer then, when there was fewer people, fewer sources of so called Carbon Polution? Then there is the Midevil Warming Period 1,000 years ago where Greenland was farmed and not covered in ice. Why was the planet so much warmer back then? It had to be warmer back then because Greenland wasn't covered in ice.

The so called Hockey Stick graph relied on ingoring the Midevil Warm Period. This was left out on purpose to mislead everyone that we are now in an extreme warming period that has never happened before. More proof that the scientist in charge have and will lie to support their beliefs, and ignore the facts available to them.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf


Eddie

 

[Redneck in training]

Plants just love CO2. If we are worried about cutting down the rain forest, the CO2 will cause it to grow all over again. The earth has a way of returning to the state it likes. In 1900 less than 10% of New York state was forested. In 2000 over 60% of the state is forest land, and I'm sure that is true in many eastern states.

The farmers quit farming and nature returns to what it likes.

That is true about USA. I found aerial pictures of my land from 1935. Only the big oak trees were present. When I bought it there was about 30 acres of forest. This is not necessarily true in the rest of the world though. As population increases the jungle is disappearing very fast. I was driving between Bintulu and Miri on Borneo few years back. The jungle is mostly gone replaced by oil palm plantations. My estimation is the area is about 5000 sq miles. All in name of development. Now the jungle is gone and the people living there are not better of than before. But that is another topic altogether.
The biggest problem humans face is population growth. The nature will find new balance for sure. The question is if we would like the new balance.

If you get away from the politics of the green movement there is still good reason to switch to different source of energy. China makes 10 or 20 million cars per year, India as well. Standard of living in Asian countries is rising quite fast. It will put a pressure on oil demand. We will not run out of oil anytime soon. We will just run out of cheap oil.

 

[EddieWalker]

There is a lot of 'cherry picking' of data going on here. No doubt by people on both sides of the issue.

It's hard to ignore melting ice sheets though, and that is an observable fact, it's rather easy to distinguish between ice and water It isn't subject to interpretation.

I try to use common sense. There are many indicators the earth's climate is warming from insects to ice. Whether people influence it seems to be the issue. It would be nice to know the total CO2 and other gases injected into the atomosphere annually expressed as 40,000 lb tractor-trailer loads. That would be a good perspective. I'll try to find a ballpark number.

Some scientist's think increased CO2 would be 'good' for us apparently. I want no part of that academic ivory-tower inspired science experiment. Thanks but no thanks. That sort of thinking always leads to big problems.
Dave.

While I agree with you that if these things were actully happening, it might be a reason to be concerned, what we now know for a fact, is that the scientist providing us with this information have been lying about it all along. They have ignored warmer periods and have exagerated how much ice has melted.

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice - by Leonard Weinstein, ScD

What we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. They have been caught fudging the numbers and outright lying about what is happening with the planet.

Eddie

 

[IH3444]

Dave, the sun heats both the earth, and Mars. Research solar cycles, and the amount of data available from solar scientist.

A russian solar scientist predicted in 2005, that we would enter a solar minimum cycle much deeper than the previous cycles. He also predected we would go into a 20 year cooling cycle begining in 2007.

Give it a few more years, until the repeat of the next great ice age predictions will start...hehehehehe

 

[eepete]

Let me go where angels fear to tread...

There are things you can observe that show there is climate change going on. Glaciers are receding, ocean temperatures are up, and CO2 levels are up. This means we'll have more intense hurricanes and larger weather swings. No models, no guesses, no projections this is stuff you can see and measure and compare with simple recorded historical data.

Here's where I upset people. I don't care why. It's hard enough to agree on what to do and then some people also want to have everyone agree on why. The only reason to have people agree on why is to garner power. So what do you do about all this? Well, we can all build buildings that are stronger and better insulated. Better insulated means more money up front, but less energy used down the road.

Speaking of energy, there is another problem headed our way. The BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are waking up the Western worlds way of doing things, and that takes energy. So the cost of energy is going up a lot in the next generation due to simple supply and demand economics. Oil and gas won't last forever, even coal has a 500 year limit. And coal is rough on the environment both mining and burning.
IMHO, conserving your way out of an energy crisis is like telling someone who is starving that if they eat less it will all be OK. Energy is critical to quality of life. It makes clean water, runs hospitals, keeps the children and the elderly comfortable, etc.
I think we should stop burning fossil fuels for fixed use site. It'g got the best weight to BTU of anything going, and should only be used for mobile applications (like tractors!). We should electrify all our major rail lines. Right now in the US, our entire distribution network is influenced by the cost of diesel. In the next 30 years we could help cushion ourselves while providing infrastructure jobs as we electrify the rail system. Cars getting better milage and plug in hybrids cuts fuel use. In 30 years when gas is $20 per gallon, that will be a big win. Let's react before we get wacked. And lets get nuclear going with the centralized processing of fuel, disposal of waste, and single plant design so the cost goes down and lessons learned can be applied. There are some inherently safe designs that look good.

I'm adding solar cells to the house (there will be a post on this when it's done). It has a payback time of less than 10 years. Government tax credits make it possible (thanks to y'all for your contribution to my project!), but every energy business gets lots of tax credits. The cells are made in Japan, shipped to the US where the panels (extruded aluminum) are made. The mounting rails are made in the USA. The mounting hardware (stainless) is made in the USA. That's about as good as it gets for now in the global economy we are in. In our free enterprise system, I'm doing this because it makes economic sense. Governments should make level fields that encourage these sorts of things, not create a penalty system of taxes. More flies with honey than vinegar.
Note also that solar cells help out the aging power distribution network in the US, a hidden cost of higher electric prices to come. Instead of more power lines, more panels. As for higher cost of panels and if they can be afforded, I ask the following: Why can we spend 200B$ to bail out banks but not spend that same amount of money to put 2KW of solar cells on 40 million homes? Suddenly the peak load during the summer afternoons goes away. It would be nice if there was a 40 year mortgage that would be used to make houses better insulated and have solar panels, but the industry that could have helped the country get there would rather help itself to quick profits. I know solar panels don't work everywhere, can't solve this problem in one post, the panels are one example of solutions we can work towards now.

So we don't have to agree about if there is global warming or not. There are clear signs of where the weather and prices are going. Deal with everything that makes good economic sense and creates jobs. Stop using a great chemical resource (oil and gas) for fixed location use. Increase efficiency (MPG) of cars realizing that fuel cost are going up due to global demand. Make more energy with non carbon based options because having lots of energy rocks! Long term sustainability means energy independence and more of our energy dollars and jobs staying at home.

It's a lot of work, but how else can the price of diesel be kept low enough that we can all get more seat time. We are all so busy arguing about the problem that we aren't working on any solutions.

Pete

 

[texbaylea]

I haven't posted in awhile but have been reading all that has been said. Here is an article by a man who knows what he is talking about.

Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears: 'There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination' | Climate Depot

Also I have been wondering where all the "killer" hurricanes forecasted by the global warming group?

Vernon

 

[texbaylea]

A comment: Have you noticed how, about a year ago, that the buzz word became climate change rather than global warming. I had the reaction that the AGW gurus were preparing to swing the other way if AGW blew up in there faces. Some have already made the switch from coming ice age to AGW when they could not get traction for coming ice age.

Governments love AGW since it gives them a beautiful excuse for more taxes. And controls on people. Do I dare mention "Public Option Health Care"

Vernon

 

[keegs]

The bakery down the street from our place in Maine uses electric ovens. The owner installed a wind turbine last spring. I was told from someone in town that startup costs for the turbine was about 75k. In August the owner of the bakery told me that the turbine was generating almost all her electricity needs and that her bill had been approx. 1.1k per month prior to installation of the turbine. She anticipated it would generate a surplus during fall and winter months when average wind speeds increase.

 

[dave1949]

While I agree with you that if these things were actully happening, it might be a reason to be concerned, what we now know for a fact, is that the scientist providing us with this information have been lying about it all along. They have ignored warmer periods and have exagerated how much ice has melted.

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice - by Leonard Weinstein, ScD

What we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. They have been caught fudging the numbers and outright lying about what is happening with the planet.

Eddie

Do you really think a site named globalwarminghoax will provide an unbiased view? The graphs on the page show one thing for sure, global temps rising. Does it really matter if they rise consistently in a straight line? I don't think so.

The results of seemingly minor temperature changes are subtle. Think of insects that keep moving north where they couldn't before, think about bird migrations that occur earlier than before. Think about cargo ships crossing the Arctic Sea in summer where they couldn't earlier. I see these as 'canaries in the coal mine', they are real, undisputable facts that don't come from emails, scientists, Al Gore or pro/con websites. A glacier that is receding is real and you can see it with your own two eyes. There is an old Irish saying - 'Who are you going to believe, me or your own lieing eyes?' We are each of us, more prone to indoctrination than we think possible.

Sure there are a lot of people getting rich or their 15 mins. of fame on both sides of this issue. You think the controversy hurts their bottom line? Heck no, the longer they can feed the issue the wealthier they become. That doesn't change any facts on the ground however.

In the end, whether the earth is warming, cooling or neither, we are running this orb at about full capacity. We really need to understand how to deal with the ecological systems we depend upon or there will be many fewer of us in the future living very degraded lives. We will have our own period of extinction someday, it is not an 'if', but a 'when'. Until then, we should make the best of what we have.
Dave.

 

[charlz]

The results of seemingly minor temperature changes are subtle. Think of insects that keep moving north where they couldn't before, think about bird migrations that occur earlier than before. Think about cargo ships crossing the Arctic Sea in summer where they couldn't earlier. I see these as 'canaries in the coal mine', they are real, undisputable facts that don't come from emails, scientists, Al Gore or pro/con websites. A glacier that is receding is real and you can see it with your own two eyes.

Why is change automatically bad????