Thread: All is fair in love and the climate science war?

testing.................

Originally Posted by freddy62

You complain about me using bad sources that graph only goes to 1990, my brother had a new 17 kilo bit computer that year & climate modeling is still guess work. Here's a more up to date graph for you to chew over.


Attachment 12748


Average global temperatures have remained about neutral over the last decade but does not prove or disprove Sun or carbon. A hotter climate normally causes more carbon to be released into the atmosphere not the other way around.


Attachment 12749

My bad - I usually check the end points of graphs because there are so many out there that are unattributed bull(*)(*)(*)(*) cherry picked to make a point

Now you have come up with another standard and debunked piece of claptrap (and please either reference your graphs or untick the little box that shows up under the URL so that everyone can tell where you sourced the picture)

So, to lead you through the basics of the science

IF Co2 rise is only a function of warming (and yes there will be rise as the oceans warm because less CO2 is sequestered in a warm ocean than in a cold one)

Now usually I post only links to research or blog sites using academic standard referencing but these you tube videos capture the essence of the arguments and are easier for people with little or no understanding of the underpinning science

Originally Posted by freddy62

You use a cornflakes website like Wikipedia that the public can edit & then complain about my sources.

Say What?!?!?!?:
Does this look familiar?


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png



Love that video, bowerbird!!

Originally Posted by freddy62

You use a cornflakes website like Wikipedia that the public can edit & then complain about my sources.

Wiki is not longer as open sourced as it once was - there is now an editing process that is overseen to ensure that the public cannot change content at will. But there are other sites also reporting the SAME data about Idso - and this is not even a new allegation.

Research connected to public funding on politically sensitive issues are going to have a hard time being anything other than politically correct & Obama has already called for the debate on anthropological climate change to come to an end.

You are kidding me right? Bush TRIED that to STOP the science - end result - "The Union of Concerned Scientists" was formed putting out papers in opposition to government dictates And that is only ONE country. Despite the wide held opinion that only America does research that in fact is not true. There are tens of thousands (that many? yes because climate science crosses a large number of disciplines) of scientists throughout the world from India to England from Australia to Argentina and beyond who are all saying the same thing - they cannot all be Obama puppets

But such a belief belies the real research being done by NON-governmental institutions such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic institutions

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#ixzz1uqk4NA3P

You either accept that there could be good information funded buy your opponents or only listen to the government-greens establishment & follow all the other sheep.

Oh! Dear! "American Thinker"

"World Nut Daily" or "Prison Planet" are more valid sites - at least they are open about being conspiracy theory sites

It "references" well debunked claims throughout that is, if the links actually take you anywhere near a claim. What links there are are to sites such as "climate depot" run by one Marc "wouldn't tell the truth if his nuts were on fire" Morano - the past master of data manipulation. Marc took a leaf out of the book of the well known fraud the "Oregon petition" and made claims along the lines of "one thousand scientists" which sounds impressive until you ask what criteria he is using to classify people as scientists and you find it is anyone who has a degree - using that criteria his "1,000 scientists" turn out to be less than 1% of the scientific population

But moving right along to the so called "51,000 thousand scientists disagree" and see what the research REALLY said - and surprise surprise the link in the article goes not to the original survey but to the EPW - written by - you guessed it - Marc Morano and HE links not to the original research but to a newspaper account of the research which does not bother to even reference the original research. So, you starting to see how this is a "Shell and pea" game? "Round and round it goes and where is the original document? Well fortunately for us it is available on the web
http://www.apegga.com/Environment/re...rveyreport.pdf

And in the summary of that article it says

Virtually 100% of the respondents agree that the climate is changing. However, there is disagreement as to the causes – human, natural, or a combination - and few believe that the debate of the scientific causes is settled.

http://www.apegga.com/Environment/re...rveyreport.pdf

Hmmmm - this is a bit different to how your blog stated it isn't it?

So what does the next phrase that the "debate of the scientific causes is settled" actually mean?

Virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. There is also general agreement that the climate is changing both regionally and globally (78.7% agree) and that it may result in both warming and cooling (83.0% agree). There is less agreement as to the magnitude of the change: 65.7% believe that there are changes to both the average and variability of the climate, 20.2% believe that there are changes to the average state, and 14.1% believe that there are changes to the variability. There is also disagreement as to the timescale: 55.3% believe that there are both long and short term effects, 28.8% believe there are long term effects, and 11.6% believe that there are short term effects.
There is even less agreement as to the cause: 27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.

http://www.apegga.com/Environment/re...rveyreport.pdf

And you know what? If you asked someone like James Hansen of NASA - one of the loudest climate change voices he would probably agree with those members. Because the total sum knowledge of science is NOT totally settled - we know the big picture but there are a million little variations that we would like to be able to quantify. i.e. We would love to know for sure if the climate patterns we are seeing emerging (e.g. desertification of Texas) will be permanent or just an intensification of current weather pattern swings. I you asked James Hansen if he thought that climate change was 100% caused by human activity he would say no. We know there is a role for solar influences, the great ocean conveyor and volcanism - it is just that the "signal" from CO2 is swamping the other inputs at present

Originally Posted by MannieD

Say What?!?!?!?:
Does this look familiar?


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png



Love that video, bowerbird!!

That graph is one one I had stored on my computer from a while back, I do not remember where I got it from & although it is pretty much self explanatory I will not post another on without a link to an article.

Originally Posted by Windigo

How is this thread based on a lie still ongoing? When was the last time anyone actually talked about the fake threats against the Australian scientists? We have plenty of AGW threads, this thread is about the false claim that Australian scientists were the recipients of death threats. It seems that the cowardly warmmongers don't want to discuss that anymore since it was all a lie.

Well there was enough for police protection to be sought for one climate scientists - not every incident has ended with death threats per se but and not every death threat has been taken seriously but is that any excuse to make someone the victim of hate mail and to encourage others to post that hate mail?