Man-Made climate change is a con

bottom line is whether it is true or not, people will believe what they want to believe whether they are right or wrong. two people can see the exact same data and see it as proof for or against global warming.

funny thing: i was listening to this guy on the radio and he was quoting some liberal media or something. his quote from them was "the recent cooling trends (and extreme cold across the country) are INDESPUTIBLE proof for global warming."

-this just makes it obvious that whoever said that quote is going to see extremely hot, normal temp, or extremely cold and call it all proof of global warming. i just thought it was funny because i was asking myself "so, if it was hot, that would mean that global warming is wrong?"

interestingly you don't see NYC building a giant sea wall to protect the city from the impending flood - the kennedy's are not selling their estate on martha's vineyard and the bush's haven't yet put their estate up for sale in maine. one would think that the mass migration out of nyc and other coastal areas would have already begun and the real estate prices would be plummeting in coastal regions and skyrocketing in the interior. seems not to be the case.

i am an old guy and recently visited a rocky coastal area where i had visited as a teenager - the tide line on the rocks was still at the same place as when i was a kid. i'm not getting too worried at the moment.

all of this fretting over something that might or might not occur in the future, meanwhile millions of people are currently dying of all sorts of dread disease, starvation, etc.

No one's claiming to be a genius here, but you are definitely claiming that I am claiming things that I am, indeed, not claiming. This is common knowledge: In a standard curve, 68% of the normal data is one standard deviation from the mean. This being a normal curve, it takes two standard deviations, or z-scores with at least 90% confidence (reports never include this) that the true result falls within the standards they have set. 95% of the results fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean, so 74% would barely be more than one standard deviation, which cannot be scientifically claimed to be an "unusual" statistic. I am not claiming this means complete distrust or that the theory of global warming holds no merit. I just mean that you can't blindly trust the scientists on this one to say that they say it so it must be true. I am only claiming bias as a cautionary point that you can't just trust the scientists. I am not saying they are absolutely without a doubt, biased. I just need to see some real evidence besides "the scientists say this" before I can really refute anyone's arguments. Before I try to prove a negative, which is nearly impossible, how about you give some evidence for your theory, without saying "it's a known facts because all the smart people believe it." Talk about logic.

Some facts:

1) The oceans were at least 350 feet shallower during the last ice age.

2) The earth has (obviously) warmed sufficiently since then to melt the ice covering much of North America, Europe, etc.

Some questions:

Isn't it clear that the same warming mechanisms that melted so much ice are the main source of rising temperatures?

Why should I worry about the ocean possibly rising another 23 inches, when I could safely ignore it rising the past 350 feet?

Some more facts:

3) The earth has not warmed since 1998, according to the 4 agencies supposedly responsible for monitoring it.

4) The global temperature dropped between 0.65C and 0.75C in the past 12 months, wiping out most of the warming that has supposedly happened since 1900. This coincided with a rather severe solar sunspot minimum.

Another question:

Who do you trust more: Al Gore or Sol?

Conclusion:

I trust the Sun more than the Moonbat.

duhduh wrote:

that the climate is warming is not in dispute by anyone with their wits about them. is the warming due to human activities, or is it part of a larger warming/cooling cycle that the earth has gone through for millennia? that is the question.

regardless, there are too many people. the earth will correct this, one way or another.

Since you think the earth has too many people, why are you wasting resources chatting on a computer? How big of a garden do you have since there are too many people? Or is that just your fall-back position?

Also, the earth has not been warming since 1998. It sounds like you understand that the earth is always either warming or cooling, though.

Mrs. Masterbooner wrote:

I think BRM prefers not to instill anxiety over the environment in his son.

We as a society have become nerve-shattered wrecks from all of our increased "awareness".

the fury over environmental issues is wasted energy. It's as productive as worrying over Yellowstone erupting and obliterating the western half of the US. Anti-anxiety meds are being used far too often as it is.

Mrs. M., sorry to hear about your son's anxiety issues. Genetics is a b!tch. Your comments above are strangly contradictory to your comments on the Yellowstone thread, so it's hard to interpret if you are concerned about volcano eruptions or not, and unclear to me where you find a connection between volcanoes and perceived/or not threats from human-influenced environmental dangers such as global warming.

What is clear is that neither you nor your *husband* care much about the environment or what will be available to your children or grandchildren after the two of you have raped the earth in your desperate quest for fun.

I have always believed that instilling an awareness of the value of the natural world in children is the way to ensure that they will be part of the solution in preserving natural resources rather than part of the problem (raping the earth). Then again, knowledge hasn't turned my off-spring into a "nerve shattered wreck".

In an earlier post, you had mentioned your visit to the Pacific Northwest last summer and your desire to return more permanently when your kid is older. Based on your comments, I can assure you that the Pacific Northwest would not be a good fit for you. The majority of the population out west values, respects and has a strong desire to protect our beautiful natural environment. You would be be knocked off the first barstool you sat your ass down on out here with your anti-environment retorts.

So please, stay out there on the East coast where you belong. You will save us the trouble of having to file that restraining order. The idea of you lurking around my neighborhood last Summer is disturbing in itself. Looking at your insane rants on this message board just reinforces my concerns about your mental fitness (the earlier pics left no question about your physical fitness).

aGeochemist wrote:

diaper dandy wrote:

***When you line up the global average temperature plots with the CO2 plots over the last several hundred thousand years, there is a striking correlation. If you use CO2 as a predictor of temperature, it is undeniable that the global average will rise far higher in the near future than it ever has.***

This is what every global warming advocate gets wrong. An increase in temperature causes biological activity to increase, and the bi-product of biological respiration is CO2. So yes, there is a "striking correlation" between temperature and CO2 because changes in temperature cause changes in CO2.

This is just a variant of the "longer growing season" myth perpetuated by ExxonMobil in the 1980s. It is a grotesque oversimplification.

First, warmer temps mean less snow and loss of water from glaciers, which means drought in many areas. Second, the benefits from a longer growing season are frequently nullified by the fact that the middle of the season becomes too hot. The result is loss of plant and animal species that cannot adapt. Third, warming increases destructive pests that kill off forests and contribute to forest fires, along with drought. How can their be increased CO2 output when we are rapidly decreasing the plants and animals that produce CO2? Deforestation in China is so severe that it can easily be seen from space. Finally, are you actually saying that the burning of fossil fuels isn’t releasing CO2 into the atmosphere? And are you saying that greenhouse gasses do not trap the Sun's radiation? If that is so, why is Venus 400c on a cool day?

I'm sorry, I thought you were done with Stats I but reading this it's apparent that you're still midway through.

You are completely misapplying the z-table.

How is this a normal distribution? Because we sampled many people? If you want to assume that (and many other things), then you can compare 74% to 50% using a simple z-score:

(.74-.50)/s

What's s in this case? I guess it's sqrt(0.5*0.5/sample size), which is a tiny number. The z-score is off the chart. The p-value is tiny, essentially 0.

74% is not the probability of the result, it's the actual result.

This is a classic case of someone trying to use math to look smart but getting called on it. Your use of statistics is brutally poor.

John Smallberries wrote:

And are you saying that greenhouse gasses do not trap the Sun's radiation? If that is so, why is Venus 400c on a cool day?

Could it be because it's so close to the sun?

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

John Smallberries wrote:

And are you saying that greenhouse gasses do not trap the Sun's radiation? If that is so, why is Venus 400c on a cool day?

Could it be because it's so close to the sun?

If so, wouldn't the dark side of Mercury be warmer than the dark side of Venus?

No, because Mecury has virtually no atmosphere.

Sorry, "Mercury"

Exactly, thank you.

The presence of an atmosphere makes the difference. The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more dramatic the effect, by definition.

Then shouldn't Mars be warmer than Earth? The percentage of CO2 in its atmosphere is 30 times higher than it is on Earth.

I'm sorry, but right now you're just looking like you're desperate to call me on something. Either way, your argument is basically null and accomplishes nothing. Also, if you got an extremely low p-value for 74%, then there is something wrong because the probably of picking a scientist that disagrees with global warming is still rather high with the 26% that are left. Besides, take a look at this source. This will show that there is obviously not as much "consensus" as people would think and using this argument is a bad way of trying to prove your point on global warming anyway. Next time, why don't you just provide some evidence for your theory. The lack of evidence alone should be an indicator that we don't need to get our panties in a bunch because we don't even know what's happening yet. People who support global warming jump to conclusions when the evidence that is available is simply too shaky to prove anything about the earth's climate, which is changing constantly. That's why they often resort to "the scientists say so" to try to push their point across. Anyway, here it is:

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

Read the articles posted in this thread they are filled with evidence. Burying your head in your ass doesnt qualify as not being provided with evidence. I will not reproduce this evidence in a reply but I have read it and I believe it as do the vast majority of learned people on this planet.

You my friend are an idiot.

not sure wrote:

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

Could it be because it's so close to the sun?

If so, wouldn't the dark side of Mercury be warmer than the dark side of Venus?

Yes, just ignore easily accessible and well established science to convince yourself that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

The atmosphere on Mars is very thin and dry. On Venus, the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere together with water vapor and sulfur dioxide create a strong greenhouse effect, trapping solar energy and raising the surface temperature to around 740 K (467°C), hotter than any other planet in the solar system, even that of Mercury despite being located further out from the Sun and receiving only 25% of the solar energy Mercury does.

This is not controversial at all. This is the kind of well established science that you have to ignore in order to come to the conclusion that greenhouse gasses have no effect on the climate.

IllinoisMaster wrote:

Why should I worry about the ocean possibly rising another 23 inches, when I could safely ignore it rising the past 350 feet?

Some more facts:

3) The earth has not warmed since 1998, according to the 4 agencies supposedly responsible for monitoring it.

4) The global temperature dropped between 0.65C and 0.75C in the past 12 months, wiping out most of the warming that has supposedly happened since 1900. This coincided with a rather severe solar sunspot minimum.

1. Hundreds of millions of people would be forced to relocate if the sea rose 23 inches. Hundreds of millions of people would be without drinking water as salt water spoils many sources of fresh water near oceans. Hundreds of millions of people would starve because a sudden (meaning over a few decades, as opposed to centuries) rise in sea levels would destroy most of the world's fish estuaries. Estuaries are tremendously sensitive to changes in salinity and die off when the salinity stays too high for too long. Fish is a vital source of protein for much of the world. World fish stocks are already under stress from overfishing. Destroying estuaries would force many species of fish to extinction.

2. 2008 was still the 10th warmest year on record since 1850. La nina ocean currents have caused this momentary, and very insignificant, cooling trend. Of course, you are referring to the latest blog entry from various global warming deniers. If you just sit and stare at graphs from the GISTEMP, HadCRU, NCDC records, you can put on your blog stuff like "Global Warming is over, there has been no warming since 1998." But this is such a simplistic view of science that it cannot be refuted in a sentence or two (which is exactly how skeptics make their points, by making a point that appears simple and elegant, when it is in fact wrought with assumptions and errors that cannot be easily explained, leaving the skeptic looking like they a right, only because the statement is so out there it can't be easily addressed). If you want an explanation on this issue, you are going to have to go to a real scientist and read a little:

I have posed no theory at all. All I did was call you on an egregious statistical error. You tried to bluff your way using statistics. It was complete crap and I called you out. My argument is null? I'm addressing your points. If they're meaningless, why bring them up?

Are you honestly contending that the Earth isn't warming? Regardless of your opinion on causation, the warming trend is clear.