"it's about the fact that the data proving global warming through human co2 production was fake."
Anything specific in these mails you feel prove this?
Nails in the Coffin
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Re: Nails in the Coffin
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
yes, the references to the data not fitting and the need to adjust it, and the emails about how to discredit anyone who questions the adjusted figures.
you can certainly wade through the emails if you like. they can be found on the net. they have been vetted both by news agencies and by the authors as genuine. there have been plenty of people who have highlighted specific passages and specific letters. there's no reason to just take my word for it, but you can.
see, the whole thing(manmade co2 warming) is just a computer simulation. the only thing needed to get a result is to plug in the correct numbers. there is NO hard evidence of an actual phenomenon, it's all theoretical, based on one set of data on a computer sim. again, the earth HAS been getting warmer since 1860 or so, since that was the end of the "little ice age". lately, however, the earth has been a little cooler. it was only 40 years ago or so, that the scientific agreement was that the earth was entering a much more severe ice age. so far, not ONE doomsday prediction(and there have been many that were already supposed to happen) of warming or cooling has come to pass. why do you think that those predictions always use "may" or "might" instead of "will"?
more data shows that the earth is in one of it's normal cycles. i wouldn't be surprised to find that humans have an effect, it's just not what's been touted, not even close. i'm not suggesting that it's not a good idea to mind the environment either. anyone who still posses any reason can see that minding the environment is a good idea. NONE of us were the ones who thought the current system was the best one for people and the world. these things were planned by our "betters" over the last few hundred years. if they cared, there'd be no "crisis". actually, as far as "global warming" or "climate change"(since they can't really say global warming anymore now that it's not happening) goes, there's very little that humans can do about it unless they really have perfected systems like HAARP in which case we're just screwed and carbon taxes REALLY won't help. when people mess with the true order of things there's always a bigger mess than ever.
you can certainly wade through the emails if you like. they can be found on the net. they have been vetted both by news agencies and by the authors as genuine. there have been plenty of people who have highlighted specific passages and specific letters. there's no reason to just take my word for it, but you can.
see, the whole thing(manmade co2 warming) is just a computer simulation. the only thing needed to get a result is to plug in the correct numbers. there is NO hard evidence of an actual phenomenon, it's all theoretical, based on one set of data on a computer sim. again, the earth HAS been getting warmer since 1860 or so, since that was the end of the "little ice age". lately, however, the earth has been a little cooler. it was only 40 years ago or so, that the scientific agreement was that the earth was entering a much more severe ice age. so far, not ONE doomsday prediction(and there have been many that were already supposed to happen) of warming or cooling has come to pass. why do you think that those predictions always use "may" or "might" instead of "will"?
more data shows that the earth is in one of it's normal cycles. i wouldn't be surprised to find that humans have an effect, it's just not what's been touted, not even close. i'm not suggesting that it's not a good idea to mind the environment either. anyone who still posses any reason can see that minding the environment is a good idea. NONE of us were the ones who thought the current system was the best one for people and the world. these things were planned by our "betters" over the last few hundred years. if they cared, there'd be no "crisis". actually, as far as "global warming" or "climate change"(since they can't really say global warming anymore now that it's not happening) goes, there's very little that humans can do about it unless they really have perfected systems like HAARP in which case we're just screwed and carbon taxes REALLY won't help. when people mess with the true order of things there's always a bigger mess than ever.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
Hi Gary
While I understand your objections, I don't agree with some of your conclusions.
Faking data for a scientific is definitively (and for good reasons) unethical. You suspect that they behaved like this for financial reasons. Personally, I doubt. It take a long time for a scientist to be recognized. To put his reputation at risk for a budget can reveal itself to be counterproductive. While it happened sometimes in the past, it was mainly individuals, not groups of scientists (it remain two or three undreds in the world which agree with the model). There is certainly some reasons.
The problem come from the model devised by GIEC not the CO2. I didn't read anything going against the fact that CO2 have an effect on climate, mainly because it would go against the 2nd law of thermodynamic.
The mains claims against the model are:
- it overestimate the part (coefficient) of the man made activities on the climate (by a factor of ten apparently).
- The model is incomplete (effect of humidity/water, solar activities... not taken into account) and some hybridized variables (tree growth as indicators of temperature, ...) would not be correctly calibrated.
So OK! As you, I say the model is wrong. CO2 is one the the drivers not the only one... but I wouldn't throw the baby with the waterbath.
Taken the exponential increase of the population (and corolary the human activity), this factor of ten will be compensated in a rather short period of time (1 generation to reach the current figure). It will take them some times to find a "correct" model as climate is a complex higly hybridized non linear MIMO system (there is far less data about solar activities than CO2
so to reach the acceptable sample size will require ... a large amount of time). They'll need then at least 1 generation to create a technollogy efficient enought to support the energy comsumption of humans. We are beyond 2050 which is currently the expected peak oil point (integrating sand oils and the like ...), and too late.
We can think that we can begin to "invest" in new technollogy now, but I don't know a single investor which will put his money at risk without some figures that he have a good chance to get his money back. So they need an economical "model" which clear the picture... and that's where GIEC model come into action. While lacking precision, it helped to set up a picture of an economically viable alternative. Yes it is wrong, but it helped.
Another point. local optimum (individuals taking care of the planet ) doesn't necessarilly translate to a global optimum. In order to expect a global optimum. Industries (house building, car manufacturers, ..) will need to enter in the game and invest in the process.
For me, between black and white ... there is a large number of greys!
About the political management of this (carbon taxes, ..) Well, lets say ... no comment!
cheers
While I understand your objections, I don't agree with some of your conclusions.
Faking data for a scientific is definitively (and for good reasons) unethical. You suspect that they behaved like this for financial reasons. Personally, I doubt. It take a long time for a scientist to be recognized. To put his reputation at risk for a budget can reveal itself to be counterproductive. While it happened sometimes in the past, it was mainly individuals, not groups of scientists (it remain two or three undreds in the world which agree with the model). There is certainly some reasons.
The problem come from the model devised by GIEC not the CO2. I didn't read anything going against the fact that CO2 have an effect on climate, mainly because it would go against the 2nd law of thermodynamic.
The mains claims against the model are:
- it overestimate the part (coefficient) of the man made activities on the climate (by a factor of ten apparently).
- The model is incomplete (effect of humidity/water, solar activities... not taken into account) and some hybridized variables (tree growth as indicators of temperature, ...) would not be correctly calibrated.
So OK! As you, I say the model is wrong. CO2 is one the the drivers not the only one... but I wouldn't throw the baby with the waterbath.
Taken the exponential increase of the population (and corolary the human activity), this factor of ten will be compensated in a rather short period of time (1 generation to reach the current figure). It will take them some times to find a "correct" model as climate is a complex higly hybridized non linear MIMO system (there is far less data about solar activities than CO2
so to reach the acceptable sample size will require ... a large amount of time). They'll need then at least 1 generation to create a technollogy efficient enought to support the energy comsumption of humans. We are beyond 2050 which is currently the expected peak oil point (integrating sand oils and the like ...), and too late.We can think that we can begin to "invest" in new technollogy now, but I don't know a single investor which will put his money at risk without some figures that he have a good chance to get his money back. So they need an economical "model" which clear the picture... and that's where GIEC model come into action. While lacking precision, it helped to set up a picture of an economically viable alternative. Yes it is wrong, but it helped.
Another point. local optimum (individuals taking care of the planet ) doesn't necessarilly translate to a global optimum. In order to expect a global optimum. Industries (house building, car manufacturers, ..) will need to enter in the game and invest in the process.
For me, between black and white ... there is a large number of greys!
About the political management of this (carbon taxes, ..) Well, lets say ... no comment!
cheers
Re: Nails in the Coffin
some 90-95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. we won't have much of an effect on that one.
i don't have a problem with many of the things you have said MD69, but saying i think it's all about money is incorrect. all of the economic theories about this stuff are nonsense as far as i am concerned. economics are a construct, a way for humans to waste their time and energy. real power is several tiers above that. these things do play out on an economic field down here at the bottom where us commoners live though, much to our confusion...
no, co2 is a so called greenhouse gas, but it is some 4% of all grenhouse gases and humans account for some 3% of that. add to this that co2 has been shown to rise AFTER temperatures rise IN ALL CASES, and that co2 is the basis of all life on earth and the whole idea of man-made warming starts to get not only laughable, but dangerous.
the earth is quite a bit bigger than people realize, even though in cosmic terms, it's quite small...
yes, the model was bad, but so was the co2 data used in the model. the compilers of that data, no matter how unlikely that might seem to anyone, have admitted in their own words in emails and then verified those emails to be real. the co2 data was definitely bad.
that's why this is the nail in the coffin of the whole theory, although like dracula, the theory won't die, seemingly.
-btw-"greenhouse gasses" aren't bad at all! without them, there'd be no life possible on earth.
i don't have a problem with many of the things you have said MD69, but saying i think it's all about money is incorrect. all of the economic theories about this stuff are nonsense as far as i am concerned. economics are a construct, a way for humans to waste their time and energy. real power is several tiers above that. these things do play out on an economic field down here at the bottom where us commoners live though, much to our confusion...
no, co2 is a so called greenhouse gas, but it is some 4% of all grenhouse gases and humans account for some 3% of that. add to this that co2 has been shown to rise AFTER temperatures rise IN ALL CASES, and that co2 is the basis of all life on earth and the whole idea of man-made warming starts to get not only laughable, but dangerous.
the earth is quite a bit bigger than people realize, even though in cosmic terms, it's quite small...
yes, the model was bad, but so was the co2 data used in the model. the compilers of that data, no matter how unlikely that might seem to anyone, have admitted in their own words in emails and then verified those emails to be real. the co2 data was definitely bad.
that's why this is the nail in the coffin of the whole theory, although like dracula, the theory won't die, seemingly.
-btw-"greenhouse gasses" aren't bad at all! without them, there'd be no life possible on earth.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
As far as I've read about the 'model' the CO2 'cycle time' plays an important role, a mechanism similiar to what we know about water: lake, moisture, cloud, rain, lake.MD69 wrote: The problem come from the model devised by GIEC not the CO2. I didn't read anything going against the fact that CO2 have an effect on climate, mainly because it would go against the 2nd law of thermodynamic.
The mains claims against the model are:
- it overestimate the part (coefficient) of the man made activities on the climate (by a factor of ten apparently).
- The model is incomplete (effect of humidity/water, solar activities... not taken into account) and some hybridized variables (tree growth as indicators of temperature, ...) would not be correctly calibrated.
So OK! As you, I say the model is wrong. CO2 is one the the drivers not the only one...
While the model (in question) relies on heavily accumulated CO2, assuming a cycle time in the 1k year range, 'other' scientists have found that a 4 year cycle would be much more appropriate.
That's a deviation in factor of 250...
But whatever way of modelling there's still an unexplainable lack of 50% of that gas. All pretty vague imho...
cheers, Tom
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Re: Nails in the Coffin
there is still a big difference in claiming false data compared to lack of "better suited" models. I don't remember all musical groups being defined as fake when Milli Vanilli was exposed, and i don't feel Phil Jones is the one and only Climate Researcher in the world.
Of course, when a mention of "Mike's nature trick" is made in one of the mails, its a salvation for those denying human inflicted climate change to be an issue. I bet very few of those people know what "Mike's nature trick" really is ("hide the decline" anyone?).
If you do a search on the net for the trick, you'll find shitloads of blogs just copy/pasting the same article (identicallly), but you find very few credible people actually having a closer look at it. as MD69 states, its very polarized, there is not much "grey" going around.
Of course, when a mention of "Mike's nature trick" is made in one of the mails, its a salvation for those denying human inflicted climate change to be an issue. I bet very few of those people know what "Mike's nature trick" really is ("hide the decline" anyone?).
If you do a search on the net for the trick, you'll find shitloads of blogs just copy/pasting the same article (identicallly), but you find very few credible people actually having a closer look at it. as MD69 states, its very polarized, there is not much "grey" going around.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
that's an easy attitude to take considering you haven't read the emails. and yes, ALL the studies confirming man-made co2 based warming are based on the fake data and bad models.
stardust, you are still just denying reality. i got my numbers from actual studies. where'd you get yours, wiki? look a little deeper. man-made greenhouse gases are a literal drop in the bucket. no matter what one wishes to believe, the warming cycle is normal, and for the moment, it's probably over. another mini ice age is just as likely as a warm period(and is a much bigger problem than warming, regardless of what chicken little says MIGHT happen). ALL the ice is still in the arctic and antarctic(although in summer there ARE large melts)...
there are better ways to spend our "heroic" energy. a hoaxed theory isn't a good use of that energy.
stardust, you are still just denying reality. i got my numbers from actual studies. where'd you get yours, wiki? look a little deeper. man-made greenhouse gases are a literal drop in the bucket. no matter what one wishes to believe, the warming cycle is normal, and for the moment, it's probably over. another mini ice age is just as likely as a warm period(and is a much bigger problem than warming, regardless of what chicken little says MIGHT happen). ALL the ice is still in the arctic and antarctic(although in summer there ARE large melts)...
there are better ways to spend our "heroic" energy. a hoaxed theory isn't a good use of that energy.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
well, actually i base my conclusions on the actual scientific evidence, not the media's interpretation. the scientific community is where i get my info.
there is NO arguing that the data was falsified.
anything else is the actual political dogma.
it hardly matters if we agree or not or whether you believe me or if my opinion matches the general public's opinion. the general public in Europe was well convinced that the earth was flat and then the the sun orbited the earth, even though ANYONE who made a careful observation could see that neither idea was true.
it is VERY unscientific, however, to ignore new information when it disproves something that you had a strong emotional attachment to. i know that there are many people who consider fighting co2 production and global warming to be their own personal crusade, to save the world. it's just too bad that reality is that it's a hoax. even if the temperatures do rise, human co2 production is definitely not the cause. if i try, i can think of 4 or 5 things offhand that are much more likely to make catastrophic "climate change" than co2.
global warming is like twitter. for some reason, everywhere you go, every newspaper, television show and sporting event is encouraging people to put everything on twitter. who is twitter and why is EVERYBODY advertising it for free? why are even those who state on air that it's stupid, still suggesting that everyone needs to participate? yes, there really is an agenda. the "best and the brightest" know what's best for you and they are willing to trick you and lie to you just to get you to go along. you probably don't remember when Greenpeace said that there would be ice free summers in the arctic by 2030, but then admitted under pressure that they were only "emotionalizing" the issue(a euphemism meaning they were lying). ALL of these scary predictions are always prefaced with "might" or "could", never "will", because chances are that the predictions "won't". yes, you're being lied to, but there's no reason to believe me, that's FOR SURE. the info is there for anyone who actually wishes to see it.
avoiding the facts by expressing what you don't like about me won't change the facts. these guys have been caught lying and hoaxing, red handed and red faced. there's no denying it, because it's admitted, admitted and then spun.
there is NO arguing that the data was falsified.
anything else is the actual political dogma.
it hardly matters if we agree or not or whether you believe me or if my opinion matches the general public's opinion. the general public in Europe was well convinced that the earth was flat and then the the sun orbited the earth, even though ANYONE who made a careful observation could see that neither idea was true.
it is VERY unscientific, however, to ignore new information when it disproves something that you had a strong emotional attachment to. i know that there are many people who consider fighting co2 production and global warming to be their own personal crusade, to save the world. it's just too bad that reality is that it's a hoax. even if the temperatures do rise, human co2 production is definitely not the cause. if i try, i can think of 4 or 5 things offhand that are much more likely to make catastrophic "climate change" than co2.
global warming is like twitter. for some reason, everywhere you go, every newspaper, television show and sporting event is encouraging people to put everything on twitter. who is twitter and why is EVERYBODY advertising it for free? why are even those who state on air that it's stupid, still suggesting that everyone needs to participate? yes, there really is an agenda. the "best and the brightest" know what's best for you and they are willing to trick you and lie to you just to get you to go along. you probably don't remember when Greenpeace said that there would be ice free summers in the arctic by 2030, but then admitted under pressure that they were only "emotionalizing" the issue(a euphemism meaning they were lying). ALL of these scary predictions are always prefaced with "might" or "could", never "will", because chances are that the predictions "won't". yes, you're being lied to, but there's no reason to believe me, that's FOR SURE. the info is there for anyone who actually wishes to see it.
avoiding the facts by expressing what you don't like about me won't change the facts. these guys have been caught lying and hoaxing, red handed and red faced. there's no denying it, because it's admitted, admitted and then spun.
-
Mr Arkadin
- Posts: 3280
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Re: Nails in the Coffin
I love politico-speak. 'Emotionalising"garyb wrote:you probably don't remember when Greenpeace said that there would be ice free summers in the arctic by 2030, but then admitted under pressure that they were only "emotionalizing" the issue(a euphemism meaning they were lying).
The Greens are the new fascists.-
siriusbliss
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Cupertino, California US
- Contact:
Re: Nails in the Coffin
Having worked in and around the environmental movement going back almost 30 years, I can definitely say that there are true environmentalists and true scientists, and then there are the pimps and shills that ruin any progress in this regard.
It's become a supplanted religion to many people. The new dogma. While averting their eyes from the bigger picture of how the planet and even galactic forces truly function and interact.
The Republicrats will spend all their bought-n-paid-for time trying to tax you for breathing (essentially), while ignoring the plastic cesspool in the middle of the Pacific, or the BP oil blunder, or the sanctioned killing of whales, and especially ignoring the 'fringe' elements such as HAARP or chemtrails.
People are afraid to NOT take things at face value and truly think for themselves.
G
It's become a supplanted religion to many people. The new dogma. While averting their eyes from the bigger picture of how the planet and even galactic forces truly function and interact.
The Republicrats will spend all their bought-n-paid-for time trying to tax you for breathing (essentially), while ignoring the plastic cesspool in the middle of the Pacific, or the BP oil blunder, or the sanctioned killing of whales, and especially ignoring the 'fringe' elements such as HAARP or chemtrails.
People are afraid to NOT take things at face value and truly think for themselves.
G
Re: Nails in the Coffin
why should i think when there are EXPERTS who are trained to do it dor me?
duh...
duh...
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Re: Nails in the Coffin
And why should EXPERTS tell me the difference of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12? or 11? or whatever anything, its all frigging carbon ffs!
as always
as alwaysA positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... yJN-ikdiCw
It seems as though on Jupiter they have a problem with Global Warming too.
Those frozen Ammonia Crystals seems to have disappeared........OMG.
Since nobody lives from what I can see, does this mean that Planets can change tempuratures and climate all by themselves....?
That's preposturous.
It seems as though on Jupiter they have a problem with Global Warming too.
Those frozen Ammonia Crystals seems to have disappeared........OMG.
Since nobody lives from what I can see, does this mean that Planets can change tempuratures and climate all by themselves....?
That's preposturous.
-
siriusbliss
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Cupertino, California US
- Contact:
Re: Nails in the Coffin
While Mars has problems with global cooling...XITE-1/4LIVE wrote:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... yJN-ikdiCw
It seems as though on Jupiter they have a problem with Global Warming too.
Those frozen Ammonia Crystals seems to have disappeared........OMG.
Since nobody lives from what I can see, does this mean that Planets can change tempuratures and climate all by themselves....?
That's preposturous.
damn Martians.
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
Re: Nails in the Coffin
oh my God! You are diverting! this is utter jupitarism! (read a hundred links to clever things about crosslinking, red herring, red lollipops and transvestites elsewhere).
may BP be with you.
may BP be with you.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
HA! Rand Paul's handlers won't let him do anymore national television. He thinks Obama should stop picking on BP and we should legalize discrimination. Turns out from his past talk show appearances that he's another one of these conspiracy nut jobs. The libertarians are even worse than most republicans!
-
siriusbliss
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Cupertino, California US
- Contact:
Re: Nails in the Coffin
You REALLY have no clue.braincell wrote:HA! Rand Paul's handlers won't let him do anymore national television. He thinks Obama should stop picking on BP and we should legalize discrimination. Turns out from his past talk show appearances that he's another one of these conspiracy nut jobs. The libertarians are even worse than most republicans!
....and they still lied.
Re: Nails in the Coffin
btw-BP's owners are in favor of carbon taxes to stop global warming, funny huh?
Re: Nails in the Coffin
BP also neglected to install the acoustic triggers that act as the safety switch to prevent catastrophes in the Baltic Ocean on rigs like the fallen one in the Gulf of Mexico. Thankfully our Congress also waived the need for BP's sake, being kind enough to do this even for a vessel that's not of US origin (the oil platform was a foreign flag 'vessel' and thus sidesteps a lot of 'red tape'.)garyb wrote:btw-BP's owners are in favor of carbon taxes to stop global warming, funny huh?
But of course this is distraction still...