Global Warming Poster Question

You've done primary research on the subject and you post this?

white lightening wrote:

CO2 levels would rise during winter, then fall during summer when there are more plants and algae to use it up.

The northern and southern hemispheres don't have winter at the same time of year. When growth slows in the north it speeds up in the south. It doesn't cause global CO2 to change as you've stated.

BTW, the permafrost did melt as we came out of the last ice age, releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases - far far more than industry gives off. But temperatures had to rise BEFORE this could happen. The release of these greenhouse gases DID NOT cause runaway warming. In your analysis, you also ignore the effects of water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. You also ignore the fact that there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature change. CO2 levels have been rising for the last 15,000 years but temps have fallen roughly 0.5 degrees over the last 8,000 years.

Why is it that the proponents of anthropogenic warming ignore climate history? Warming and cooling have occurred many times. There is ample historic evidence as to causes and results. CO2 has not been shown to be a driver of change. The doom and gloom predictions of less water and food as a result of warming do not match up with history. If anything the opposite is true. Why is it that you think controlling CO2 emissions will stop the climate from changing?

only me wrote:

Any article which has anything remotely to do with Lord Monckton is automatically NOT a reputable source. That guy is a piece of filth, and dirty as hell - plus he doesn't have a single qualification in anything remotely to do with climate science. Why don't you find an authority who doesn't believe that the Earth was created in seven days?

Why, becuase he disagrees with you? Can you argue with the facts he presents, and his analysis of the Climategate scandale (have we forgotten?)? It should not be relevant if he believes the earth was created in 7 days. That has nothing to do with the climate controversy. You show your own ignorance by trying to discredit a guy just from saying he is a bad source. As another person said, repeating a lie does not make it the truth. Do you have any evidence that Lord Monckton is "dirty as hell," or is he just another climate change denier that you have to ridicule in order to propagate your alarmist agenda.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The northern and southern hemispheres don't have winter at the same time of year. When growth slows in the north it speeds up in the south. It doesn't cause global CO2 to change as you've stated.

[/quote]

There is far more biomass in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. Just look at a globe. More forests, and more algae in the northern hemisphere that are less active during the winter. Hmmmmm.

And of course permafrost thawed before, it's just that there is still a massive amount that is still frozen, trapping large amounts of C. Releasing that will put new C into the system that is not currently available, increasing the amount of CO2 and CH4. You can't tell me there will be more plants because of more CO2 in the atmosphere. The plants don't use all the CO2 they have now. What makes you think they could handle more?

And yes, I DO take into account water vapor, which is NOT 90-95% of greenhouse gases. Even if it was, it is not something we can control and is not as volatile as CO2 and CH4 in regards to how dangerous it is to the system. Why could we even say that water vapor is 90-95% of greenhouse gases? In that paper that Poor Al Gore cited, it claims water vapor is always precisely 95.000% of greenhouse gases. With the fluctuation in humidity, do you really think it is a constant thing? It rises and falls with temperature and other factors. CO2 and CH4 do not.

And climatologists do NOT ignore climate history. That's precisely why they're so worried, it's because they know climate history. Yes there has been warming in the past. Yes, we are still coming out of an ice age, so yes T should still be rising. But not as fast as it is. As I said before, both human AND natural forces are at work here.

We think that stopping putting new C into the atmosphere will help because we know what the carboniferous time period was about. Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, very warm global temperatures. Lots of plants fixed the C, but because of the warm, wet conditions, were not able to decompose, so the C remained fixed and turned into the fossil fuels we have today. Now, we're taking those fossil fuels and putting the C back into the atmosphere. Precisely what do you think is going to happen? We return CO2 to a previous level, temperature follows.

Climategate has exposed the global warming frauds. Take a look:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat

the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Very nice - it must be nice to have a hobby

How about answering the original question:

Even if global warming is not taking place do you really think polluting the planet and using up all its resources so quickly is a good idea?

A yes or no would be nice.

Is this email scandal true? I never heard about this. When did this come out?

If this email scandal is really true then I don't know what to think. I wrote a paper in school and quoted some of these so-called scientists. You are now telling me that they manipulated a lot of these facts. Can someone let me know if this email scandal is true or is this guy JOhnstone making it all up. More info would be appreciated.

This is in response to ukathleticscoach. With all due respect sir, you never asked me any questions or asked me to respond to anything you said on this subject. Second of all, I will only defend my three posts regarding this topic. You seem to think that only one person is challenging your assertions. And that this person is using different names on this thread. I am here to only defend my three posts on this subject. I have no idea who the other people are that are also disputing you assertions.

Your question was "even if global warming is not taking place, do you really think polluting the planet and using up all of its resourses so quickly is a good idea"?

My answer is as follows: I am very concerned with people polluting the earth. I am all for a global campaign to teach people to have respect for our planet. But I am not for this scam that is being shoved down our throats by certain scientists and politicians who will make billions and billions of dollars off of it. If the global warming fanatics have their way, I will be playing $3,000 a year in taxes. And to me, this is a lot of money for something that has been exposed as a scam and a fraud. I am all for keeping out planet pollution free. But I will not do it by spending billions and billions of tax payers dollars that will go into the pockets of these frauds that call themselves scientists and politicians. I have nothing against you sir. But I know a lot more about what is going on in the USA regarding this subject than you do. And it isn't pretty. I hope this answers your question. I do not believe we disagree that much onj polluting the earth. Our main disagreement is on how to stop this pollution.

If i am reading this right, I think that Johnstone and ukathleticscoach are on the same side. Ukathleticscoach thought that Johnstone was against reducing pollution to save this planet. Johnstone said that he is not. But he is not for the current proposal by global warming scientists and politicians that will cost billions of dollars. So you see, you guys both agree on the issue but disagree on the remedy.

I just looked into the global warming email scandal, and it is indeed true. I cant believe scientists have altered their data and have been so dishonest with their research. These people are not scientists. They are oppotunists. As for Al Gore, he is just a weird dude and I cant trust anything he says.

I think we can conclude from this thread that global pollution is a reality but that global warming in the way it has been presented by scientists and politicians, is a hoax. This has been very informative to me. Thanks guys!

Good post above and fair point by Johnstone, so how is the Gore camp planning on spending your tax $ and what does Johnstone think are the solutions to helping control polution, damage to environment etc

I must admit the increase in UK car tax appears to have been spent on widening the M1! But on the other hand what annoys me is all these conferences with world leaders agreeing targets that they have no intention, whatsoever of keeping

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Very nice - it must be nice to have a hobby

How about answering the original question:

Even if global warming is not taking place do you really think polluting the planet and using up all its resources so quickly is a good idea?

A yes or no would be nice.

No, it is not good to pollute, but why do we always feel the need to attach the global warming hype to this? How about we just clean up our air and water like in the good ol' days. What happened to reduce, reuse, recycle? It's been warped into "make giant tubes in the ocean that will suck out CO2" or "really long hoses that go up in the sky and squirt stuff that will make the atmosphere cooler" or other ridiculous stuff that has nothing to do with pollution. Global warming has NO place in the environmental movement. We need to move past this in order to solve anything instead of wasting billions of dollars on contraptions meant to suck the CO2 out of the air or artificially cool the atmosphere. We shouldn't have to mention global warming everytime a cleaner planet comes up in the conversation. Global warming is ruining the whole idea of stopping pollution and doing your part to clean up. Now people just watch the "scientists" on TV make up crazy ideas that will never actually work, but could, in theory, "save the world."

Colleen T wrote:

Is this email scandal true? I never heard about this. When did this come out?

If this email scandal is really true then I don't know what to think. I wrote a paper in school and quoted some of these so-called scientists. You are now telling me that they manipulated a lot of these facts. Can someone let me know if this email scandal is true or is this guy JOhnstone making it all up. More info would be appreciated.

All involved admitted that it was their emails. A few of them made laughable explanations, and when pressed for interviews to clear the air, not one of them agreed.

So little consequence that Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, which has a huge financial benefit for promoting global warming hysteria, resigned from his post because of the scandal. It was revealed that they were withholding and destroying data. Manipulating it with bad computer code. Scheming to not accept papers that disagreed with their dogma in scientific journals. The list of offenses goes on and on.

Colleen T,

Ducks are secretly bears. This just came out last week, so be careful of ducks because they are really bears.

Seriously, look at what--after an exhaustive analysis of all of the e-mails--the outcome of that analysis by AP reporters ended up being. It's a lot more banal than what you think. Personally, the contrived quality of your posts makes me think you are performing as an audience shill, but maybe that's just me. "Really, drinking so and so drink will make me more attractive to men? Glug, glug, glug..." "Now I am a believer!"

As long as we still have people denying evolution, I don't really give a flying fu\ck what people think of global warming. Matters of physics and chemistry should be left to science, not democracy.

As long as we still have people denying evolution, I don't really give a flying fu\ck what people think of global warming. Matters of physics and chemistry should be left to science, not democracy.

You think pollution and Global Warming are separate issues?

Do you know what causes Globsal Warming?

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate­gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

Wow! You seemed to know so little about what was going on a day or so ago, and now you know soooooooo much! It's a good thing you came to letsrun and then did tons of research. I imagine you also helped out the teabaggers at the town hall meetings?