Global Warming

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by The Leader

I think I found the first article but I had to either subscribe to the site or pay for the individual article. I have found the second one published by Physics Society. In the beginning of every article it is written, and I quote: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'" Here is where I found the article.

The full quote below.

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.



The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

Full article

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.

"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere," states the preamble to the paper.

The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.

No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.

In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving that the UN IPCC's 2007 climate summary "overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%."

According to the paper, "Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007."

The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The paper concludes, "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100."

[The Leader]

Yes, I've seen all that. The point is that the first paper does not come from a peer reviewed source, meaning that it has not been checked for errors. The entire paper may, hypothetically, be completely false. Did you only read the articles discussing the papers or did you read the papers themselves? The last thing you quoted is not the actual study but a brief overview of it. I've noticed that when I have actually gone through the links you have posted and read the papers, studies etc that they discuss, that none of them dispute that there is global warming. The closest that they come to it is disputing whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of it. In fact, many of the articles which propagandamatrix links to, including one in your quotation, state that CO2 is the primary factor in global warming. The sites you frequent evidently pick out the parts of articles and papers that they agree with while ignoring the portions which back up the opposition's side.

I struggle to see how these articles support your opinion when they often in fact detract from it.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by The Leader

Yes, I've seen all that. The point is that the first paper does not come from a peer reviewed source, meaning that it has not been checked for errors. The entire paper may, hypothetically, be completely false. Did you only read the articles discussing the papers or did you read the papers themselves? The last thing you quoted is not the actual study but a brief overview of it. I've noticed that when I have actually gone through the links you have posted and read the papers, studies etc that they discuss, that none of them dispute that there is global warming. The closest that they come to it is disputing whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of it. In fact, many of the articles which propagandamatrix links to, including one in your quotation, state that CO2 is the primary factor in global warming. The sites you frequent evidently pick out the parts of articles and papers that they agree with while ignoring the portions which back up the opposition's side.

I struggle to see how these articles support your opinion when they often in fact detract from it.

I don't think I can make it much clearer. You have to come to your own conclusions.

[Supafly345]

The myth that the earth has been cooling is one of the stupidest, and easiest to handle arguments out there, and to think there is any scientist that believes that is rediculous. There is an 11 year solar cycle where temperature rises and falls, then starts over again, the trend of warming is shown in the increasingly higher highs each cycle. So when they say "there has been no global warming for the past decade" and present that as proof, it is invalid because that isn't enough time for a full solar cycle, and like I said earlier, the amount of time needs to be over 15 years for it to be a significant measurement.
The fact of the matter is that back in 1998 we had an outrageously hot year that was a complete anomaly that spiked outside of our current warming trend completely, and it isn't very likely we will reach that temperature again very soon, and so climate deniers like to compare any temp today to that and say "see? its cooler than it was in 1998, therefore we are cooling." When in science statistics the peaks like that are smoothed out. The bottom line is that any number of years that shows a cooling trend that is under 15 is invalid as a legitimate statistic, because it isn't enough time to make a scientifically significant measurement.

And I read around in your last article, and clicked the link they claimed as their source, and guess what I found?

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

That was the preface to the source article that YOU posted. The paper was NOT peer reviewed, and as everyone knows as a fundamental step in the scientific process: no paper is considered legitimate science until it is peer reviewed. Not only was it not peer reviewed, but the people who published it take an aside to let the reader know that they officially agree with anthropogenic climate change. The link claims it was peer reviewed, but if you click it you find out that it is not. None of these sources are from reputable science journals.
There were a few links in it that actually did go to peer reviewed papers, but I couldn't read them because I needed to be a paying member of their info website or something, so I couldn't check them- they were only vaguely cited anyways so I don't think they had a huge impact on the article you posted. But there are a number of scientist out there with legitimate papers out there that do go against what the majority of science papers are saying. But we don't go with the theories with the least support, we go for the ones with the most.

I don't have time to check everything you link, but I think the random check I made should be a good indicator of how credible your sources are.

[TheCoolinator]

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.



The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.

Here again...is the FULL quote.

You guys are clinging to sand here. Your seeing what you want to see.

Not only was it not peer reviewed, but the people who published it take an aside to let the reader know that they officially agree with anthropogenic climate change.

lol, I wonder who's paying their bills.....

Ok, Now its time to show me why Global Warming is real.

Proceed.

[Supafly345]

Are you high? It still feels like you aren't reading anything I write and just make smug short remarks instead of actual rebuttals. Read that FULL quote, it says specifically that that very opinion does not reflect theirs.

None of this is from a science journal anyway. Unless you can find some papers from a peer reviewed science journal, and not an article reporting on a paper about an article, it is questionable.

[VaporTrailx1]

CO2 levels have been much, much higher throughout Earth's history although I wouldn't really count the pre-Carbiniferous levels since it was a vastly different ecosystem(ie. not much land vegetation). But throughout the Mesozoic, it was much higher than today.


Just as a side note. There seems to be a correlation between points where the temperature rebounds after a lowpoint and mass extinctions. for Example Ordivician/Silurian extinction, and the end Permian. There's no real good parallel to our current period btw. The Permian was in terms of Temperature levels, but there was pretty much one giant continent and one giant ocean, so it was vastly diferent other than that.

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Tadao

He can now.

Thanks T.

Coolio, I think I was incredibly patient with you, trying to tease out of you something other than rhetoric to support your position on the AGW hypothesis. I even admitted agreeing with a portion of your argument, in the context of a larger whole. I did not go so far as to correct your scientific blunders nor your grammar (which on the whole was OK) - this would have been obstructively rude. However, you continued to ignore or misinterpret everything I wrote, in some cases modifying my words to fit your own ends. This is the height of hypocrisy, considering you are accusing individuals of manipulating data to support AGW.

I was trying to be nice. Now, all I hear is a faint buzzing sound, and all is good.

Peace to you.

CF

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by VaporTrailx1

CO2 levels have been much, much higher throughout Earth's history although I wouldn't really count the pre-Carbiniferous levels since it was a vastly different ecosystem(ie. not much land vegetation). But throughout the Mesozoic, it was much higher than today.


Just as a side note. There seems to be a correlation between points where the temperature rebounds after a lowpoint and mass extinctions. for Example Ordivician/Silurian extinction, and the end Permian.

Ironically I was just re-reading one of the articles that I previously posted and they were saying the same exact thing.

Here is the quote.

8. New research on our gasses


AT least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.


One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.


Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1225823736564

[Colonel Flagg]

Originally Posted by Blasted Child

If you pulled that 6% figure out of anything apart from your behind, it's still an alarming percentage.

BC, I don't think even he knows what he's going to say next. If this is true than it is a potent argument FOR the validity of the AGW hypothesis.

Wait for it ....

[VaporTrailx1]

CO2 = bad

[The Leader]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

You guys are clinging to sand here. Your seeing what you want to see.

Are you serious? You can't provide any evidence that there is no global warming, you ignore the fact that none of the articles you linked to claim that there is no global warming, only the sites that you found those articles linked from claimed that. Do you actually realize that you don't know what you're talking about or do you actually believe that you are correct, or rather that the sites where you get your opinions are correct?

Ask yourself this, have you ever actually read any of the papers or reports about global warming or have you only read conspiracy websites? Obviously you haven't because you evidently don't know anything about what has been found out about global climate change.

You aren't even voicing your own opinion, you're only regurgitating what the websites you look at say. You think that you're being targeted because you are thinking outside the box but you're not. You're being targeted because you evidently can't think outside of the box. You are unable to accept any information presented to you that is contrary to what you believe.

Prior to you joining these forums I had no opinion in regards to global warming/climate change, whether it was real or fictional etc, but after having read your comments and seen what kind of indoctrinated, unthinking, close minded individual you are when it comes to this issue I am beginning to think that there is in fact science behind global warming. Supafly has stated that he was a skeptic until he actually read into the theory. Someone who is able to actually asses the views of their opposition is a thinking person. You are not, evidently, and I am sure that you will read this and in your holier than thou mode of thought will think me a follower, duped by mass opinion, but I am not. I am not influenced by the opinions of the masses but rather by the opinion of one and their complete, needless detachment from reality.

[Supafly345]

There is no silver bullet to prove global warming, so it would take ages to go over it all, but it is easy to debunk junk skeptic claims. However there is an unlimited amount of those, so I would never have a break until a desire of understanding surfaces. I'll stick around but I am not going to play an active role in this thread any longer. For anyone on the fence I'll again post the very good video series that I posted earlier, but it was in link for so it could have been easy to miss. Its very good and covers tons of the best arguments, and cites sources.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by VaporTrailx1

CO2 = bad

I agree.

Anyone else find it silly that they had to change the name of the movement from Global Warming to Climate change just in case the weather got cooler.....now they can blame it on CO2 no matter what the temperature is.

In the documentary "Out Foxed" you see where the phrase Climate Change came from. A right wing public relation firm made it up.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Supafly345

There is no silver bullet to prove global warming, so it would take ages to go over it all, but it is easy to debunk junk skeptic claims. However there is an unlimited amount of those, so I would never have a break until a desire of understanding surfaces. I'll stick around but I am not going to play an active role in this thread any longer. For anyone on the fence I'll again post the very good video series that I posted earlier, but it was in link for so it could have been easy to miss. Its very good and covers tons of the best arguments, and cites sources.

Thanks for the video, it cleared up at least one thing for me; the man released gases merely trigger the climate change. Interesting. Now I have to watch all the other videos I guess.

[Colonel Flagg]

Good video, SF. Thanks.

[TheCoolinator]

I think we should all be asking ourselves why the Global Warmer community (Privately funded) would want to demonize a benign gas like CO2.

How I see it is that they wish to criminalize the gas in the mind of the public. Their mode of operation is to throw out an emotionally charged ideology (End of the World Scenario), mainly focused at the youth to create a synthetic mass movement. Some call them little enforcers. The high priests (climatologists) of this movement are promoted by a quasi-governmental body referred to as the IPCC.

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

This group of unaccountable, unelected individuals decides by decrees which work of literature will be favorable to the cause of global warming and which ones are not (I.E. Censoring, Omittingm Ridiculing). The main thrust or agenda behind this synthetic movement is to create a Carbon Tax based around CO2. By doing this they will have an unending supply of revenue coming from the countries paying into it. The Carbon Tax will be on everything. Literally. It will be on any product that is created through using energy. This is an austerity tax. This is a tax created to destroy what’s left of industry while driving down the standard of living for the people. All under the guise of "Saving the Planet, polar bear, island nation, etc, etc,".

They understand that as cynical, desensitized, and callous people are these days there is an inherit goodness about them willing to make sacrifices for the future of humanity. If they are able to channel this energy through institutionalized irrationality then their plans will come to fruition. As an added bonus they wish to also pass a Cap and Trade system to officially "cut carbon emissions" but unofficially it will further destroy industry while propping up a speculative market on CO2. The Carbon Credit scheme will be similar to the pollution credits of old, bigger more powerful polluters will be allowed to pollute as much as they please as long as they buy / trade the credits legally on the open market, all the while having wall street parasites driving up the price of carbon to further pauperize the public.

It's an ingenious and insidious plan. That's why people have stood up in the face of adversity and spoke out against the mass manipulation.

31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/

This one is for TheLeader because I know he loves the Peer-reviewed stuff.

Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

[Zhukov]

It may well be an ingenious and insidious plan, but does the existence of such a plan refute that climate change is actually happening?

I am a big proponent of 'find out who benefits most' etc, but that by itself doesn't mean anything. It's all well and good that you've shown us that people are exploiting the 'climate change movement', but does it automatically follow that the climate change movement is based on faulty science, or lies?


Oh, and are you saying that climatologists should be elected?

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

It may well be an ingenious and insidious plan, but does the existence of such a plan refute that climate change is actually happening?

The changing of the climate is a natural cycle unaffected by Mankind. As I said previously, They own and operate the man made global warming hypothesis. Meaning it's been a fabrication from the beginning.

but does it automatically follow that the climate change movement is based on faulty science, or lies?

As I said above, the "movement" is completely sythetic. It's a ruling class ideology that has been forced upon emotionally fragile individuals who have no knowledge of past climate patterns. If you scroll up a bit you will see a chart and a quote that both point out that in certain parts of history CO2 levels were 10x as high and the earth was not warming. The chart also shows that even when CO2 levels drop the global temperature stays the same.

Oh, and are you saying that climatologists should be elected?

No, I'm just pointing out that the IPCC is a unaccountable agency that was created to prope up the myth of man made global warming.

[VaporTrailx1]

Raising CO2 levels in the ocean are what we should be worried about. It has far more devastating effects than global warming.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by VaporTrailx1

Raising CO2 levels in the ocean are what we should be worried about. It has far more devastating effects than global warming.

Yes,

Ocean acidification is messing up all the reefs and shellfish populations. One more reason we should of been moving to renewable energy sources. I feel like these oil and coal cartels have been halting Human progress for over half a century.

[Tadao]

Suicide might make you feel better.

[The Leader]

I like how it took the Coolinator a full week before he posted a link to an article that is credible and to actually clarify his opinion.

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

The changing of the climate is a natural cycle unaffected by Mankind. As I said previously, They own and operate the man made global warming hypothesis. Meaning it's been a fabrication from the beginning.

That's not an affirmative or a negative in response to my question. Does the existence of whomever you are toting as the 'they' at this stage "owning" the global warming hypothesis actually prove the non-existence of global warming on a scientific level?

If, as I, and logic, suspects, the answer is no; then please stop using "The ruling class is making a mint out of the global warming lie" as an argument against the existence of global warming.

The ruling class owning the 'Climate Change Movement' =/= Climate change is not happening.

[The Leader]

Wait, is he actually saying that global warming does not exist or is he just trying to convince us that there are people taking advantage of it, or trying to show that CO2 is not the cause? I thought he was just horrible at explaining his opinion but now I am back to being confused. Way to fuck everything up Coolinator.