Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

Demosthenes11 · 2009-12-09 07:04

Originally Posted by Beckwin

yeah, substantial steps like not signing kyoto

Kyoto honestly means nothing. Nobody is anywhere near meeting the standards Kyoto set nor ever will be in the timetable set by Kyoto. It was a nice thought, but that was way too radical. Signing a piece of paper doesn't make you any more likely to do something. You might as well be saying "No first use" agreements mean something (nuclear weapons).

The simplest way to help pollution is to switch to nuclear power, but the same US environmental groups that lobby on behalf of climate change lobby against nuclear power lol
It's all pretty stupid really

**Beckwin** · 2009-12-09 08:10

I don't get it... you're saying kyoto was too radical, but previously you said whatever we can do now cannot be enough to actually get an effect.

Demosthenes11 · 2009-12-09 08:15

what's hard to understand? The world won't suddenly jump on something like the kyoto protocol and carry it out. Change happens gradually - kyoto was a huge leap. You don't cut 50% of CO2 emission overnight, and that's basically what kyoto was asking for.

I'm saying kyoto is not something anyone can do right now and judging by the countries that signed it and what they are actually doing, I'd say I'm right

**ByeByeTasai** · 2009-12-09 08:20

Originally Posted by Demosthenes11

The simplest way to help pollution is to switch to nuclear power, but the same US environmental groups that lobby on behalf of climate change lobby against nuclear power lol
It's all pretty stupid really

^ This. There are good alternatives for energy but they are so inefficient and expensive that it just isn't worth switching to until the technology improves. However, we do have nuclear technology that could solve many of the problems if people would just shut the fuck up about the dangers of nuclear energy.

People shout solar panels and wind turbines but the problem with that is it takes roughly 30 years for these investments to break even, since there is no good way to store the energy and you still have to rely on public power. So few will actually take that risk, pushing for these kind of changes are getting us nowhere.

**Acturus** · 2009-12-09 08:59

Originally Posted by Leif

Conservative? Yes, probably. Christians? That's like saying left-handed people don't believe in global warming.

I'm left-handed, and I don't believe in global warming.

BEHOLD!

(am I doing it rite?)

**eunhye** · 2009-12-09 10:07

Kyoto you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ay-danish-text

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act.The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

**Max™** · 2009-12-09 14:02

Caution: Charts and Data, all sorts of shit, from many sources I found on temperature, Co2, and a few other random factors mixed in here and there.

Your requisite chicken little shit too.

After reviewing this information, I have come to the conclusion that nature is out to get us, it's coming to fuck your butt, be afraid.

Spoiler: show

**eunhye** · 2009-12-09 14:13

Science rulez!

**Trelution** · 2009-12-09 14:22

I have nothing of substance to add other then Max's avatar teamed with all the science he is posting makes me smile.

**CDF** · 2009-12-09 15:01

Originally Posted by Max™

Caution: Charts and Data, all sorts of shit, from many sources I found on temperature, Co2, and a few other random factors mixed in here and there.

If you're going to spend all this time hot-linking images, at least give the URLs for the blogs from which they come, as though this quasi-"literature review" topples this monolithic model (not model a la GUT but many little-m models) of AGW (a ridiculous caricature) you knock down.

You could spend all day repeating this exercise to "disprove" evolution by natural selection or that HIV is a causative agent of AIDS (evolution, as the mundane definition goes, is empirically observed), which would also be cherry-picking from the findings of those who actually do the research that as a whole supports the thing which you oppose (probably... can't be assed to spend hours reviewing literature to prove a point on an Internet forum).

**Heavencloud** · 2009-12-09 15:09

Originally Posted by Max™

Caution: Charts and Data, all sorts of shit, from many sources I found on temperature, Co2, and a few other random factors mixed in here and there.

Your requisite chicken little shit too.

After reviewing this information, I have come to the conclusion that nature is out to get us, it's coming to fuck your butt, be afraid.

Spoiler: show

How are your findings on blogs more credible than scientists from Cambridge and UCLA?

**Leif** · 2009-12-09 15:10

Originally Posted by Cadsuane

I'll bite.

Fabulous.

1) I'll point out that you're willing to be skeptical to the point of solipsism when evaluating your opposition but completely fail to live up to your own standards when enumerating your own position, as evidenced by your refusal to answer Zealot's challenge.

Except, my standards are: If the burden of proof is on you, you need to make your case before I've made mine. The problem is, if they actually had a case, all of us "skeptics" would shut up because we would be convinced. This is a case of them convincing us, not us convincing them.

2) You read Ann Coulter,

Yes! She's brilliant.

you think Evolution is a myth,

I buy evolution so far. It's still a myth.

you think fascism was a left-wing movement. Your ideological bias on every issue is about as subtle as a flying brick.

Except, in your tradition of never completing the argument, you never established how my ideological bias is present on this particular issue.

3.) It doesn't, but thankfully it's a red herring as far as my own position is concerned.

I like how the ideological bias you can't seem to prove or document is grounds to reject everything I say before I even say it. Simply the fact that I think global warming is a giant hoax means that it must exist!

That's some sloppy thinking.

No, you're not exactly a shining example of intellectual honesty and no one expects you to revise an opinion.

I happen to think I'm rather intellectually honest. For one, I don't post news stories as my evidence. Second, I don't revise an opinion, and I never contradict myself because I stick to what I actually think. There's no room for error there.

At any rate what I was actually getting at is that showing raw climate research papers here would be about as informative to either of us as if I showed you a proof of the discontinuity of the derichlet function.

Well I've seen the latter, and I was convinced. Try me on the first one. I bet, like the Dirichlet function, the research has some major gaps in it.

I can assure you that I'm qualified on the subject but that doesn't make you any more entitled to the opinion that the function is discontinuous unless you actually go and attend some math classes. When you realize this, we can maybe have a lovely discussion on something else like say, how public debate can distort scientific endeavours.

Great. Now that I've accomplished number 1, we can talk about how public debate makes scientists go coo coo for corruption.

Well yes, the burden of proof is on climate scientists to prove what they're saying, but there's two things you're missing. One is that the burden of proof I was asking you not to bring up but very predictably did anyway was for me to substantiate every trivial comment I made in response to your post without living up to your own standards (see first paragraph).

Yes. Because if you can't do that, how can I possibly trust anything else you say. I seem to be able defend my comments quite nicely.

The second is that no one is burderned to prove the tenability of some article of research to "us".

When we are subjected to the conclusions that these reports made, we most definitely need the opportunity to cross examine it.

Academics answer to other academics and not to the public, and for very good reason (see second paragraph).

Except, as recent evidence has shown, these academics were corrupted by the political game over global warming. See, liberals are using it as a tool to gain government control. Conservatives don't like that.

For starters, anyone who doesn't know that correlation does not equal causation, which is almost anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of statistics, which is a staggering majority of people.

You keep bringing fancy terms in like "statistics" "equal causation" and the "Dirichlet function" (which you misspelled by the way) to try and prevent people from responding to you. To further prove my point, I think people can understand your point quite clearly without being a statistician.

**Max™** · 2009-12-09 15:16

Originally Posted by CDF

If you're going to spend all this time hot-linking images, at least give the URLs for the blogs from which they come, as though this quasi-"literature review" topples this monolithic model (not model a la GUT but many little-m models) of AGW (a ridiculous caricature) you knock down.

You could spend all day repeating this exercise to "disprove" evolution by natural selection or that HIV is a causative agent of AIDS (evolution, as the mundane definition goes, is empirically observed), which would also be cherry-picking from the findings of those who actually do the research that as a whole supports the thing which you oppose (probably... can't be assed to spend hours reviewing literature to prove a point on an Internet forum).

I actually just go through and google image for broad terms like: 4000 year temperature records, 2000 year temperature records, 1000 year temperature records, ice core temperature records, and whatnot.

I do like this guy though, I actually admit that I've been sitting and reading through this in between searches: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/, though I haven't been picking data from the site due to the name.

I'm trying to remain unattached to data sources here, but his points do mirror my own well.

"Here is one thing that is never mentioned — most of the scientists outside of climate science who have gone on the record somewhere as supporting catastrophic man-made global warming theory, if you really talked to them, would say they made their statement in support of science, not global warming theory. Most of these folks really haven’t dug into the details, but the problem was presented to them as one of science vs. anti-science. They are told by their peers and the media that AGW skeptics are all fundamentalist super right-wing anti-science evolution deniers who think the Earth is 4000 years old.

By saying they support AGW, these scientists are really trying to make the statement that they support science. The bitter irony is that they are doing the opposite, enabling those in the core of the climate community who are trying to duck criticism and replication by demanding unquestioning respect for their authority. The fact is that nearly every time one of these outsider scientists - a physicist or a geologist or a statistician, say - digs into the science, they are appalled at what they find and how bad the science behind catastrophic AGW theory really is."

By Thor's Mighty Hammer that sounds familiar doesn't it?

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...o5-500x318.png

vs

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...o7-500x292.png

That's interesting stuff huh...

Incidentally, just as an example of how unattached I try to remain when providing data in this way, I apparently linked some sites which are run by creationists who support AGW!

What a twist, all I cared about was that the data fit the broad sources such as sediment/ice core/tree ring/recorded sources.

**Jeryhn** · 2009-12-09 15:40

Originally Posted by Leif

I buy evolution so far. It's still a myth.

Seems to me you're a bit on the fence about it, but willing to take the side of ignorance that believes homo sapiens were produced by anything but random chance, and are somehow "designed" by some greater purpose than adaptation to environmental changes. Next you might say that fossils are a test of faith, the irony being that suffering the opinions of those who believe "Evolution = Myth" are far truer tests of faith and patience than anything any Christian could produce.

Seriously, has any follower of religion not ever considered that the Bible could very well be the 1st century's version of Twilight?
Maybe we need a new Darwinism thread to clear the air 'round here...

Darwin vs. God: There can be only one.

Just sayin'.

PS: It just snowed in Sacramento, and a good number of inches too.
That never happens. This past summer was also one of the hottest on record for the region. I'm more inclined to believe that humans are affecting the naturally-occurring changes in our biosphere, whether it is strictly adverse or not remains to be quantified.

Even if we somehow usher in some new Ice Age or whatever a few millennia sooner, its not like it would be the complete death of the Earth because, as demonstrated by what we know from biological history (it's called Evolution, Know Nothings!), the Earth is more than capable of reproducing an environment that provides towards the presence of life over time. It certainly is one thing to argue about climate change, but arguing against the presence of evolutionary forces within our biosphere is a completely different beast, Lief. You're either fearless or stupid. Or a troll. Maybe a combination of the three. Don't care which, but masterful job at the trollin', if so.

More or less, the argument about Global Warming or Climate Change, or whatever the fuck you want to call it isn't so much about the end of the Earth, as much as it is the end of the Earth as-we-know-it.

But, shit guys, it's cold.

**Max™** · 2009-12-09 15:54

It would be a fine irony on my part if Lief is trolling, and making the same case I am, as for once I am completely without intention to troll.

Mann’s got an interesting problem. His various hockey sticks show incredibly low temperature variability until about 1850 or so. But his and his counterparts models assume the climate temperature system is dominated by very high positive feedbacks that multiply even tiny changes to forcings into large temperature swings. These two points of view are extraordinarily hard to reconcile.
Similarly, climate alarmists assume that some sort of natural phenomenon is hiding or masking warming for the last decade. Given their forecasts, this has to be a pretty muscular phenomenon, but at the same time they have to argue that natural factors are not muscular enough to have cause much or any of the temperature increases in the 1980s and 1990s.
The ability to handle cognitive dissonance is important in climate science.

Awesome, worth editing for.

**Solefald** · 2009-12-09 16:01

Originally Posted by ByeByeTasai

^ This. There are good alternatives for energy but they are so inefficient and expensive that it just isn't worth switching to until the technology improves. However, we do have nuclear technology that could solve many of the problems if people would just shut the fuck up about the dangers of nuclear energy.

People shout solar panels and wind turbines but the problem with that is it takes roughly 30 years for these investments to break even, since there is no good way to store the energy and you still have to rely on public power. So few will actually take that risk, pushing for these kind of changes are getting us nowhere.

nuclear power has the same problem actually. building nuclear plants is INCREDIBLY expensive and takes a long time to attain profitability, and there needs to be a high and stable demand for nuclear energy. the low price of oil in the 80's and 90's was the main reason no nuclear plants were built in the US during that time.

future energy is going to come from a variety of sources, nuclear, solar, hydro, geothermal, maybe even microwave energy from space. no one source of power is going to be enough to satisfy the world's energy demands.

**Max™** · 2009-12-09 16:05

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...lar-panels.jpg

Hmmm...

**Solefald** · 2009-12-09 16:09

Originally Posted by Max™

Caution: Charts and Data, all sorts of shit, from many sources I found on temperature, Co2, and a few other random factors mixed in here and there.

Your requisite chicken little shit too.

After reviewing this information, I have come to the conclusion that nature is out to get us, it's coming to fuck your butt, be afraid.

you are super dumb bro, scientists have known for years that the cooling in the middle part of the 20th century was due to particulate emissions in the atmosphere. that was anthropogenic too.

**Max™** · 2009-12-09 16:15

Oh, so the sudden warming prior to 1940, which doesn't sit neatly with the Co2 rise... that was caused by something else, which was canceled out by particulate emissions around that time, and then resumed as if it never happened?

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpre...12/slide48.jpg

What is that?

Do tell, as I appear to have missed this obvious information.

Oh, don't forget that the entire argument about anthropogenic global warming relies on the assumption that things which affect the climate now are strong enough to overwhelm factors which didn't affect the climate in the past.

**Solefald** · 2009-12-09 16:55

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

edit: that site is pretty good for answering a lot of the bullshit that gets put up by skeptics here.

What is happening now?
New: Any cooling disproves global warming
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
Polar bear numbers are increasing
The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
The oceans are cooling
Mars and Pluto are warming too

Does CO2 cause warming?
Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming http://www.newscientist.com/img/icon/artx_video.gif

Why should I worry?
It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
We can't do anything about climate change

Is the sun to blame?
Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
It's all down to cosmic rays

What happened in the past?
The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

What is going to happen?
Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Can we trust the science?
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't trust computer models of climate
Many leading scientists question climate change
It's all a conspiracy
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
New: The hacked emails reveal a conspiracy

Thread: Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Have you read this?

Pyschofreak read the forums?

Mogi Please Read This!

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads