“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
@checkyoursources I am limited by my posts, so just read Monckton's debriefing and observe the figures vs. the lies and deceit being propagated by the IPCC and it's cohorts.
@dudeinco Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. (WMO) 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
Let's get the truth behind the debate. The AGW was built on the premises of a garbage piece of analytical equation (the hockey stick), was promoted by one of the top American "carbon footprint" offenders, and was created from a rag-tag environmentalist group based on bad data, was sold to the media and over-hyped, was promoted throughout the schooling system, and developed a religious following. watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
@dudeinco AGW as a theory has been around a lot longer than "carbon footprints" and the hockey stick paper in 1998, plus there have been a number of independent proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
@checkyoursources You are still reading the UNIPCC / political inspired viewpoint on everything from data analysis to gathering. wwwdotplantsneedco2dotorg/defaultdotaspx?menuitemid=371 The other side is rarely heard. Why? Because there's no money to be made there.
@checkyoursources In reference to the *ACTUAL* 8 year downturn in temperature:
"A few years’ downtrend cannot be naively extrapolated. However, taken with the fact that the 30-year uptrend was at a rate below the uptrend observed in the 1920s and 1930s, the current downtrend notwithstanding the continuing and increase in CO2 concentration indicates a growing likelihood that CO2 cannot be influencing surface temperatures to the extent imagined by the IPCC."
And here it is, November 2011, and sure enough - the Climatic Research Unit's data shows global warming is a fact after all. The nay-sayers are out of luck.
@donwest420 no shit. obama got the nobel peace prize, and he said that the war in iraq would be a thing of the past 16 months after he went in office, and yet our brave troops r still there. enough of the fucking democrats lying their way 2 office, let's get a Libertarian elected!
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. B Star Sientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste it is completely safe NO Fukushima here. It is very cheap to produce so if you care about the cost of your energy you will want this.
See website "Star Scientific Limited"
Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath"
Youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
The scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by five indepenedent investigations. Not one scientific academy disagrees that human emissions are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. The Sun has not been the primary driver for decades: Read Lockwood 2008, Frolich 1998, Haigh 2003, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
@checkyoursources Right, because a fact check that animals (specifically cattle) actually produce more harmful emissions than humans is never worked into these "human based equations" are they? And they cleared all the scientists of wrong doing? So who was the scapegoat for the obvious forgeries and misleading results? No one? So sweeping this under the table keeps everyone warm and cozy knowing where this nation and every other nation's money is being funneled through?
@dudeinco Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases (UN) that cause global warming so not sure how you got a figure that they produce more than all the human activities?
@checkyoursources You warming alarmists are sheep. Cattle bred by a factory. In this case, it's the institution. They fill you up with bull and indoctrinate you since kindergarten and you follow blindly.
@checkyoursources Actually, being a vegetarian causes humans to produce more gas. The majority of which being comprised of Methane and CO2 (mind you, CO2 being called the "deadly gas" by alarmists). So I wouldn't be jumping on that so quickly. Here's to your question: wwwdotindependentdotcodotuk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html
@dudeinco you have changed your argument from "cattle actually produce more harmful emissions than humans" to "transport emissions are less than cows" both of which are insignificant and incorrect compared to the main contributors i.e. electricity and heating (SEE: World GHG Emissions Flow Chart - World Resources Institute). A vegetarian diet produces less GHG's than a meat eater's according to every national science academy on the planet. p.s. your own comment disproves itself.
@checkyoursources If we are talking about electricity and heating, and not what humans consider (generalization) the greatest threat (vehicles), then let me ask you this: How is it you'd be typing if that was a valid concern of yours personally?
Vegetarians themselves produces more GHG, and that was the point I was trying to make (more out of jest). I know organizations like PETA disdain the meat eater with arguments of animals being raised for consumption causing more "gas."
@dudeinco nope as stated a meat eater eats food that has been fed on plants so of course the energy input and therefore GHG output is higher for meat eaters. See: Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment Am J Clin Nutr September 2003 vol. 78 no. 3 660S-663S for evidence.
@checkyoursources While we are talking about two different effects, I will offer this: "The problem is the body's inability to fully digest the complex carbohydrates so abundant in the vegetarian diet and the consequent excessive production of gases such as hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane." Mine is a joke wrapped in truth. You are trying to argue sustainability based on food source.
@checkyoursources Also, I'm not particularly interested in "scientific consensus." Therein lies the problem with the system. Multi-trillion dollar drains on nations throughout the globe with agendas such as billion dollar research studies and "carbon tax" make the agendas so clear, you'd think any rational human would be able to see the guise. The problem is that we mandate the feeding of such agendas into the school systems, so people are thoroughly conditioned.
@dudeinco Lets check your consistency of argument: If you went to a doctor for cancer treatment and he said the concensus was a particular type of treatment would you ignore that advice and go with your own ideas?
3 million die prematurely annually from fossil fuel air pollution, why would you want to keep using fossil fuels when they have killed so many?
@checkyoursources 3 Million what die prematurely from fossil fuel? XD Consensus on facts (i.e. MMWR) is not the same as general accepted consensus of opinion based on theory.
@checkyoursources Still speculation, although *somewhat* believable. Attributing deaths to AGW chemicals is a bit of a leap. Knowing that releasing chemicals "harmful for human inhalation" attributes to a poorer quality of life is common sense. Stating that items like CO2 is the cause of millions of deaths is harmful to ones intelligence.
@dudeinco I didn't state CO2 was the cause if death?! I stated "fossil fuel" pollution is harmful and the effects of excess CO2 are harmful in the long term. Fossil fuels are more than just CO2 and the cost of clean fossil fuels prohibits them economically. p.s. I recently read that Oxygen levels worldwide have been falling.
@checkyoursources I've been reading that last statement for the past decade. I also read that dinosaurs were riding around in semi-trucks, which caused the O2 levels in the ocean to deplete in the prehistoric age. Now we know why the warming cycle happened during that time period (I mean dinos must have had HUGE vehicles). We also know that global warming causes global cooling, so there you go - their ignorance was their downfall. Mysteries of the universe solved.
@dudeinco Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, our CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2 so thanks for reinforcing that.
@checkyoursources Ultimately what you and others do is mistake FACT from THEORY. Fact states that millions die from lung cancer each year. Fact states that of those that died of lung cancer, most are/were chronic smokers. Theory states that CO2 causes global warming. Theory ignores the Earth's natural balance, the next upcoming cycle (which isn't a warm one), and basis itself on "facts" collected on improper testing, and goes even to the point of what we see in this video to maintain.
@dudeinco Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. AGW is a theory, but it happens to be the current most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. No natural cause theory has been empirically shown to account for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
@checkyoursources You are making the leap that the explanation for all the world's climate change is based on human interaction. How did the world manage to change it's climates prior to human existence? What was the explanation for the warming that occurred during prehistoric periods (dinosaur flatulence)? AGW theorists do not take into account natural cycles, environmental variables, ocean and astronomical anomalies that are far more powerful than human influence.
@dudeinco "the explanation for all the world's climate change is based on human interaction" actually I stated: AGW is the current most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's, which isn't the same as saying ALL?!
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing (in the same way that deaths from bombs are not natural while the black death was natural.)
@checkyoursources Let me put it this way: I've been fed the cock and bull since I was in grade school. We were taught that in 20 years, if things didn't change, we'd all be dead on a planet that was essentially a furnace. Fast forward two decades: Now I'm hearing that all the changes (hot or cold, tornadoes, earth quakes) come about from this AGW god like super-power. It reins in the realm of politics and money. Nothing ever comes from either but fear mongering.
@checkyoursources Don't get me wrong. I'm not against cleaner skies, or against regulating emissions. I'm against the balogna. The fear tactic that we are all going to die at the hands of some invisible bogeymonster created by the likes of our own exhalation biproduct. I know that 71% of this planet is made up of ocean which produces the majority of our oxygen. I find reads such as: wwwdotcanadafreepressdotcom/index.php/article/26571 intriguing from parties that do not...
@checkyoursources ...benefit from the AGW propaganda, fear mongering, reputation, or loss of large grant money. It is no secret (or it shouldn't be) that any member of the scientific community that has spoken out against AGW has had funding lost from government grants. This isn't about the planet, it's about money and politics.
@checkyoursources American Association of State Climatologists (try looking up all the members that have lost their positions due to being associated)
The purported shortages have allowed them to artificially increase prices well beyond where they reasonably should be. Between AGW and shortage beliefs, oil has increased it's profits 4x in areas that this normally would not have been considered reasonable increase due to "precious commodity" status.
@checkyoursources Do you HONESTLY believe the line that "oil companies can [will] be taxed out of existence?" That's political fodder, feeding the money machine.
@dudeinco The idea is not to tax them out of existence, it is to make them invest in carbon low/free energy with their profits. Surely you appreciate that we are going to have to shift across sometime so why not do so now while oil is still affordable?
@checkyoursources An alternative would be great (and I don't believe in the CO2 bunk, but I'll go with you on the harmful pollutant front). The problem that I see, is who is offering this solution. Was not part of Obama's speech: "We will tax the oil companies out of existance?" Don't say no, because I watched it live ;)
@checkyoursources Also, how does raising taxes and creating artificial shortages help anyone short of the wealthy to exterminate the poor? When prices of gas continually go up, who do you think ACTUALLY suffers the most? The middle class? Somewhat. The rich? NO.
@checkyoursources So show me your alternatives that are truly viable, and we can discuss from there. Is taxing everyone on their carbon footprint solving something? Can you show a correlation between over-taxation and reduced usage throughout history? This is the stand the IPCC and the US (fall in line) is taking. How does this help this planet or your fellow man (assuming they aren't a paid constituent of the IPCC)?
@dudeinco Also read: Erik Conway. "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change", NASA, 5 December 2008 p.s. Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
@checkyoursources And pay attention to this at that debriefing: "The endpoint fallacy: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri likes to use the above IPCC graph to demonstrate his contention that global temperatures are rising at an ever-increasing rate. The deception relies upon the careful selection of endpoints for each successive linear regression.
However, a glance at the IPCC’s own graph of global temperature changes over the past 150 years demonstrates that this is not the case"
@dudeinco Dear oh dear, the number of times monckton has been disproved by his own admittance is many. "skepticalscience Monckton Myths" look it up. Monckton's maths is worse than his lies. p.s. Direct from the WMO 2011: In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998.
@checkyoursources Theory brought us wonderful things like flat earth and evolution (not part of this debate, just making a comparison). Fact brought us valid programs like "smoking cessation" and "teen education." When the researchers have to resort to what is seen in this video to maintain evidence of their alarmist theories, then it is up to the individual (who is unpaid, and whose work and reputation does not hinge on the theory being true) to look at it skeptically.
@dudeinco So lest test you objectivity then. You should according to your logic accept the findings of the Berkeley Earth project then as it was carried out by skeptical organsation funding. It found the same warming trends as NASA, NOAA and the met office. See: Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study 21 October 2011 BBC news. the handful of scientists involved in climategate were cleared of any wrongdoing by 7 independent investigations!
@checkyoursources Berkely, regardless of funding source, is driven by political motivators. And when the data is the source of the problem, any skeptical analysis will be forced to reach the same conclusion. As far as scientists being cleared, this should not surprise anyone. CC is a multi-trillion dollar industry that drives politics, power, and international wealth. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it cyclical? Show me sustainable proof that CO2 is a disastrous chemical.
@dudeinco You are asking the impossible to have a scientific experiment with no funding whatsoever, why do you doubt the vast majority of climate scientists findings?
Also ask yourself why governments/businesses who make so much money from fossil fuels (dwarfing the small amounts made from carbon credits etc) would be willing to reduce fossil fuel use?
You only have to look to the past to recognise that rapid climate change is harmful to life on Earth.
@checkyoursources Rapid? Who informed you that any changes are "rapid" and outside the normal scope of earth cyclical changes? We are talking about fractions. If the changes were "rapid," my earth first teacher in grade school would have been correct in assessing we would all be dead by now (over two decades have past since the doomsayers predicted our demise).
@dudeinco 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing beacuse none of the natural causes can account for it. 2) Between today and the last ice age there have been 6C of change, the first 5C took many thousands of years. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about a degree with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. I call the current change "Rapid".
@dudeinco 6C of change since the last ice age is from the EPICA ice core temperature plot although strictly speaking it may be more. Compare the rate of change for the last 100 years (1C in 120 yrs) with the preceeding 10,000 yrs roughly 1 degree of change every 2000 yrs!
@checkyoursources you should check YOUR SOURCES! try looking up the iron mountain report! climateSCAM.info they specifically said that they need to INVENT environmental problems to implement world government
@checkyoursources I should also note that the earth has been warming 1/2 degree since 1680. I know that is of no concern to IPCC followers as we study only trends pertinent to our times (inconvenient truth).
My "all caps" words were actually not intended as shouting. It is just to focus on what counts in science. Which is not politics or persons but verifiable and accurate scientific measurments plus verifiable and accurate indepedent scientific verification. Followed by a scientifical credible conclusion that explains the measured and verified observations. That is science! Notice the absolute absense of terms like "carbon tax" and other red herrings like that.
"Simply repeating yourself over and over and over again does not make me a believer. "
.
Yes. But the irony is is the reason I am shouting and the reason that I repeat myself is because the same excuses are repeated over and over again. In contrast, rarely, if ever, has any AGW denier ever provided a plausible cause for the rate of increase of global temperature. Other than the simplistic answer "the sun". Of which every scientific source agrees it is not sufficient.
Global warming is CONFIRMED by years of MEASUREMENTS of indepedent scientific resources and independent scientific disciplices.
The CURRENT MEASURED global warming is FASTER then any KNOWN natural warming cycle ever measured by many of the SAME scientific techniques. So what is the CAUSE for this extreme rate of global warming? The increasing CO2 is a known STRONG greenhouse gas that corrolates with this rate.
Corbett is either misinformed, uneducated or, Zeus forbids, lying. I strongly advise him to verify each statement he annouce by means of multiple accredited subject matter knowledgeable sources before he makes his claims public and embarrasses himself.
MORE CLIMATEGATE!. US Govt. agencies involved in Data Manipulation FRAUD! NASA. NOAA
put that title in search and see how beautifully EVERYTHING has been verified! Nebraska MAN FRAUD ANYONE? rofl! over 30,000 scientists suing al conman gore ring a bell? we the people KNOW about you dis-info FAKE scientists, next thing you will tell us that the twin towers PANCAKED, LMAO! Oh, and smokestack excrement [fluoride] being called a NUTRIENT by UN?!?
@SprayOClockNews You are confusing issues here. Fluoride, Nebraska man are subjects for other topics.
Fraud of NASA/NOAA data is on topic. Your accusation, therefore your responsibility to list the references. Please list the verifiable and verified credible references on topic and in context.
"There is no concensus regarding the cause of global warming."
.
So you claim.However, I bet you cannot find even one accredited subject knowledgeable university or other subject knowledgeable scientific institution that does not CONFIRM the AGW is a scientific fact.
I even doubt you are able to list 20 subject knowledgeable scientists, thus active in the scientific field of climatology, that DENY this accepted scientific fact.
@TakeItFromThere there is a scientific consensus on this issue, and if you follow the work of scientists you will see how the evidence they're finding is getting stronger all the time. Sure, there are vested interests at play on both sides of this debate, and I don't agree with the agendas of politicians on these matters, left or right. But the simple fact here is that man is having a negative effect on the environment, at all levels - from the animal kingdom to the climate.
@sugarcanegray The debate is far from over. But when will we get to Manbearpig? That seems to be a more pressing issue considering it's a godless, marauding, half man, half bear, half pig that will certainly be the downfall of us all.
"Now, the sun IS the cause, because the sun's solar activity was on an increase during the years we had that warming. The earth is cooling back down now, because that solar activity has subsided."
.
I strongly advise you to research this claim because every scientific resource, including NASA, all state that the current global warming cannot be explained with solar activity alone.
If you have a scientific resource, which coloroftexas is not, claiming otherwise then show it.
Manbearpig should be the real issue hear. Not gobal go green climate warming change at the moment, although it is a pressing matter. Climate change will cause us to have hot summers AND hurricanes. The kind of shit mankind has never had to deal with before. The ice caps are melting, and have been since the early 1800's, and it's because we drive cars. The fish will all die from too much water in the ocean. It all makes sense and it's peer reviewed too. I'm serial people, the debate is over.
Sorry for the multiple posts, but it would appear I didn't address one of the key issues brought up. Here's the big secret: The oil industry AND the government LOVES the GW and anti-oil types. Artificial shortages to create price hikes? Increased taxation rates on what has become a necessity? Maybe you need to look a little further than the surface to see who is truly benefiting the oil industry. Unfortunately the losers in all of this is the destitute families who can't afford this joke.
@BasicSpace42 Any opposition to GW has been given the medieval "flat earth" reception by the government and the scientific community. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, and no. If the data doesn't correlate with the theory, it's dismissed as ludicrous, brushed off, or "manipulated" to support the theory. If you want to maintain your scientific notoriety, you don't question it. It's mob mentality, and there's a lot of money pushing this theory. Just look at how much is demanded from countries..
@dudeinco well, the opposition of GW has a great interest in supressing the science of global warming as well(the oil industry for example). This looks very simlar to when it was discovered that cigarrets increase the risk of getting cancer , but the tobacco industrie did all it could to distort the facts and claimed the scientists where divided and not sure on the issue. Interestinlgy most politicians who oppose global waming now recieve big donations from the oil industry. coincidence?
@dudeinco While there are respected sientists who oppose the idea of anthropgenic climate change, they are by far in the minority. There is currently no other theory that explains the current warming and EVERY scientist agrees that there is warming right now.
Also, science doesn't work the way you described it. Data cannot simply get mainpulated or dismissed. That is where the peer rewiew process is for. And I think it is highly unlikely that thousands of papers somehow avoided the peer rewiew.
@BasicSpace42 First of all, you didn't watch the video. The data is falsified and destroyed. The scientists who have spoken out have lost their funding. You tell me, if agreeing with something helped you keep your job, how hard would you oppose it? MOST people wouldn't. Hence, "scientific consensus." The majority agrees they'd rather keep their job.
@BasicSpace42 Did you, or anyone else offering rebuttal actually WATCH the video or READ the transcripts from climategate, or are you quite content to have your head stuck in the sand on this issue?
The weather stations used, (when they actually bothered), were mostly placed in warm or hot areas. This is because that since the break up of the USSR many, if not all, of the stations that were in cold or freezing climates were closed. It's a scam. If you are happy having your head up your arse then fine, but not me.
I'm off to light my coal fire, go for a ride in my 2 gallon per mile truck whilst smoking a cigar and farting the national anthem...
The weather stations used, (when they actually bothered), were mostly placed in warm or hot areas. This is because that since the break up of the USSR many, if not all, of the stations that were in cold or freezing climates were closed. It's a scam. If you are happy having your head up your arse then fine, but not me.
I'm off to light my coal fire, go for a ride in my 2 gallon per mile truck whilst smoking a cigar and farting the national anthem...
Just a quick question. If global warming is a hoax, how did they (whoever they are) manage to fake thousands of scientific papers from dozent different scientific fields that support global warming? That must be by far the biggest conspiracy of all time. And it doesn't even work well, since many people, politicians included, doubt global warming. So it must also be the worst conspiracy of all time ...
@BasicSpace42 Grant money is pulled from the opposition to the theory, and trillions is funneled away from countries in the name of GW. It doesn't take a genius to see the motivating factor.
"It's time for you to do your own research, little boy. Us adults can't hold your hand forever."
.
Thank you for the advise, but I have done the research and found nothing, other than unsubstantiated rumors often proved to be wrong.
So please now present the research on which you base your claim.
It goes without saying, of course, that this is verifiable and verified, c.q. peer-reviewed, relevant science. This is, of course, what every skeptic rightly demands.
@wimahlers Man, you must have been up all night fuming over donwest's comments. get a life, you fucking loser. al gore is a joke, and everyone that believes in that phony shit he pushes is a joke. get some pussy, and stop obsessing over al gores dick.
Some people have some morbid fascination for Al gore.
But as I said before and now say again:
I refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the official statements and position of accredited and well respected scientific institutions such as the royal society, NAS, NOAA and all others as well as the position of all respected universities all over the world.
"Man, you must have been up all night fuming over donwest's comments"
.
Two remarks:
a) It is day time where I live (=The Netherlands).
b) I don't have to "fume" over donwest's questions. To fume about it requires a challenge. A challenge must include a well written argument void of personal emotion, void of personal bias and void of gullibility. And frankly donwest has not produced such an argument yet.
"AGW belief is all about giving a retard, Gore, a nobel prize to give that shill more false credibility, so he can get dupes like you to accept a global carbon tax. That's the down and dirty of it. More evidence supports THAT theory than the man made global warming theory."
.
Fascinating conclusion. But where is your evidence for your claim?
Don't just talk about it, prove it!
Prove that there is: "More evidence supports THAT theory ..."
The sun is the cause of all weather. Hell, it is the cause of our existence, hell, it is the cause of ALL existence on earth.
But the amount of heat given by the sun retained by the earth is NOT the only factor determining climate. On a long term scale continental drift has a major impact, oceanic currents, precession and other atronomical cycles, geologic activities and the type of life producing gasses. And at this moment in time Homo sapiens is producing too much CO2.
What is it with this morbid facination of Al Gore. Who is he? He is NOT a scientist.
I refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the official statements and position of accredited and well respected scientific institutions such as the royal society, NAS, NOAA and all others as well as the position of all respected universities all over the world. Open your mind, the world is bigger then just Al Gore!
What do you know more or better then these institutions? Tell me!
(cont) ...on the variable that was controlled for, Ie, the diff between the two conditions was amount of carbon. If it wasnt SS it would mean that carbon has NO EFFECT on plant growth and therefore there is NO NEED to know the diff in the cond, as any difference is natural varibility or another factor, that could be controlled for/tested in another experiment. next u could test for "amount of ligh" and see if that is a factor for plant growth, if ss= is a factor, not ss= not a factor/no effect.
(cont) beyond background interference as you called it. This also ,eans that co2 IS a factor in plant growth, it HAS an effect, as there WAS a difference between the two conditions. The direction showed objectively that the plants in high carbon condition were greater (could be recorded as height of plant as raw data before stat interpretation) compared to height of plant in low carbon condition. This is why SS is important. If not SS it means there was no difference on the variable that was
(cont) but as I have pointed-out; in real life experiments, there is a sig difference between plants in the high carbon and low carbon conditions, unsurprisingly as plants breathe co2. This is why I directed you to co2isgreen, there is even a vid on youtube somewhere showing timelapse camera comparing the two conditions (high carbon/low carbon) and PROVES beyond a doubt that "extra" carbon leads to greater plant diversity/growth. There is a sig difference, beyond natural variability or backgroun
(cont) (how much co2 resulted in how much growth) you only need to do this when there is a significant difference, as you should understand now. Because if there is no sig difference than the hyp was not supported and any difference that may have been present was due to natural variablilty, and a repeat of the experiment would continue to show no difference, MEANING (if there was no diff between the conditions) that increased/decreased co2 had NO effect on plants, ie. that co2 is not a factor.
(cont) because their results were not showed no sig difference between the two populations it means carbon would have NO EFFECT on plant life, however they covered up their findings by saying "inconclusive", we know this because there are more papers (and vids on youtube of a plant growing in a hogh carbon environ compared to low carbon) demonstrating the reverse hyp; that is "high carbon" areas had sig diff, or sig more plant diversity/growth. NOW we can calculate what this mean (how much
(cont) ...greater than chance, as the is random variability between the two areas, scoentist like to makimise the power of an exp by eliminating many varibles, to increase the diff, to allow a diff to be "seen", of it is there. So for the hyp to be supported you would expect (if AGW fan) for there to be Significantly LESS plants in the higher carbon environment. A well designed and realistic exp was conduxted to determine just this, and found NO sig Diff(actually the report stated "inconclusive)
OK, i changed my mind read this to understand sicence (basic sense) an example not the actual exp: They have the hyp that due to CC there will be less plant diversity, they make observations or take measurements, say the number of plants in a given area, and compare this to the number of plants in a given area with more carbon. Now they compare the results using stats. To SUPPORT the hyp there would have to be a meaningful diff between the 2 areas. Meaningful difference is a diff that is greater
@8n4n08 o wrong on the first post. sorry but no, even if the data supported the hypothesis there is still the chance that the difference was caused by background anomalies or the lack of further data. SS, especially in this context, deals with the lack of data points. the data still showed warming moron.
"This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but is not significant at the 95% significance level."
@CannibalShinobi You dont even understand the not SS at the 95% alpha level, sop dont pretend. You have done NO science courses in higher education, you are NOT in a science programme; it is dead fukin obvious. I am not going to waste anymore time with you
@8n4n08 i didn't watch your video because you don't watch anything i post you hypocritical cunt. FFS how the fuck do you expect people to be interested in seeing any evidence you bring with your argument if you admittedly wont give theirs the time of the day? i have given you a full 10 minute video explaining the quote in question, explaining SS and giving many examples of when it is used and how it is used, and even a damn link to the full article to present the full context.
Hotspots were the crux of AGW fans once observations were failing to prove AGW, they made-up some ad-hoc explanation, saying that the upper atmosphere was "where the heat was trapped" this was also found to be a lie as NO hotspots were found.
C02isgreen has a bunch of papers on the +'s of extra carbon for plant life, and ofcourse, life in general. You can't win CANNIBAL, you are too stupid. Find me evidence of hotspots, find me the recent paper where the AGW crowd had "inconclusive" results.
Water vapor makes-up 96% of greenhouse gases, and humans contribute a fraction to the carbon cycle (less than 4% of greenhouse gases). Thereby only a fraction to the "greenhouse effect".
Would anyone suggest that we tax water vapor, do people know that we wouldnt inhabit this planet if there was no green-house effect.
Are people aware that there was a warm period before industralisation, and that the just past warm period was seen on other solar bodies and is related to the activity of the sun.
@8n4n08 how much water vapor do you release when you burn fossil fuels?... AND generate steam to power turbines? Also lets remember the destruction of carbon sinks means more airbound water vapour.
@MarkB1ngham The question is HOW MUCH CARBON do you release you half-wit, that's easy, mankinds' contribution is very small compared to the amount released by biological and geological mechanisms.
@8n4n08 NO I'm asking how much water vapour is released when you burn gas oil or coal and how much water vapour is released from steam powered turbines?Forests are part of the water cycle. Are these NOT factors in the anthropogenically generated GH gas equation hmmm? what is "halfwitted" about these questions?
@MarkB1ngham I find your question difficult to understand, I can't determine what side you are coming from, do you see water vapor as something that should be demonised, taxed and regulated?
And no, generally the models do not account for this in the greenhouse effect, it is solely attributed to the small scapegoat known as carbon; probably because this is easy to tax and easy to point at mankind for.
They're also unconcerned with small amounts of the toxins that are released when burning coal.
@8n4n08 Oh and they are also uninterested in the activity of the Sun, one would think this is another (major) factor, as with water vapour, but I haven't come across anything other than the carbon hypothesis in the mainstream. I have rarely seen the hypothesis that "the sun activity may be responsible".
@8n4n08 I'm no scientist, I dropped out of bsc environmental science hnrs' in the 2nd year but I recall from a diy tv show that gas fires and cookers caused damp problems in houses. I can't seem to find any data on the link between burning fossil fuels and the GH gas water vapour in the atmosphere, it MUST be a factor. (Fossil fuels don't cause acidity?)
@MarkB1ngham Yes, it is definetly a factor in the greenhouse effect, the major one besides the sun, as 96% of greenhouse gases are water vapour; but no-one would propose a tax on water vapour, as water, like carbon, is obviously essential to life.
I don't know about fossil fuels and acidity, I am honest in saying that I -believe- they will cause acidity but I do not care to research this. I do know for a fact that doomsday scenarios of acidic oceans are bullshit, however.
@MarkB1ngham Carbon sink is a catchy term that means next to nothing, it is something non-scientific, hopeless minds have caught onto in an effort to sound scientific. Their ill be NO acidification of the oceans, and the carbon sinks are unimportant in a self-balancing cycle. Radiative forcing shows that the more heat that is trapped, the more is radiated-out into space, like all of nature, it is a self-balancing work of genius.
@CannibalShinobi “there has been no statistically significant warming” since 1995, in the words of the now-discredited Climategate “scientist” Phil Jones, you're a fucking idiot. c02 is green dotcom.
@8n4n08 HAHA is that why 1998 was the hottest year on record beating out 1995 by about 0.3°C and every year after 1995 has been significantly hotter? look at the data, or maybe you're just too damn stupid to understand it...
@CannibalShinobi Statistically Significant is the key term here, and after 1998 there has been a cooling trend, the summer use to get to nearly 40C but has so far has not even made the 30's this year where I live; but because of liars no-one mentions this facts. You're obviously too stupid to "look at the data" yourself, models do not represent real observations, and as I said real observations do not show the heating you Believe in as part of your religious practice.
@8n4n08 0.3C does not represent a statistically significant trend, as it could be due to artifacts of measurement, or more likely the stupid modeling procedures that goes on. It is not "different" enough to be meaningful, except as a supposed record, which it was only according to one source and for one region, it was not the hottest year in my country.
@8n4n08 yes it is different enough you twat. especially since the whole global warming from 1920 to now is a mere 1.0C. to morons that might not be significant at all, but to people who understand global climate that is extremely significant especially since its such a huge change in only less than 100 years.
@8n4n08 no its not, looking at GLOBAL TEMPS. not your personal weather reports you fucking cunt, there is a warming trend. anyone who uses their own local weather as evidence for or against global warming is simply too fucking stupid and ignorant to carry a conversation with.
@CannibalShinobi hahaha... say "baaaa". You know what the best way to limit man made CO2 is right?... eliminate man. If you're so concerned, prove it and just go kill yourself please.
@ne0teric you're a fucking moron, why would i even care about global warming if i was going to off myself anyways? the whole global warming scare is about people wanting to keep the earth safe in order to save mankinds future. only a complete retard, such as yourself, would suggest killing mankind would accomplish what people who want to fight against global warming want. another moron with the power of anonymity.
@CannibalShinobi The only way to truly keep earth safe for mankind's future, is to do away with people such as yourself. I like the way you phrase this; "global warming scare"... exactly! Scare, that's all it is... a play on fear. Hmmm... "would suggest killing mankind would accomplish what people who want to fight against global warming want"... Me thinks its not I whom has the extra chromosome here. hahaha Make sure you don't ditch class any more, please.
@ne0teric haha your lack of understanding of basic knowledge of gobal warming is pretty funny, but you lack of basic knowledge of the english language is fucking hilarious. just because its a scare doesn't mean there isn't something to be scared of. but hey, keep running from the facts. have fun trying to remain an elitist asshole while you're pumping gas for someone else for minimum wage you inbred cock mongrel.
@CannibalShinobi LMFAO...."your lack of understanding of basic knowledge of gobal warming is pretty funny, but you lack of basic knowledge of the english language is fucking hilarious." You're kidding right?... talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Oh, and love the insults!... they make you sound so intelligent.
@CannibalShinobi You know nothing about global warming, you're just an illiterate troll. Scientifically illerate as well, DO YOU UNDERSTAND what statistically significant means you fukin half-wit. NO. 100% no, Phil Jones knows what it means, and has stated that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING for over ten years.
Secondly 96% of greenhouse gases is water vapor and mankind contributes a fraction to the carbon cycle, not-to-mention the solar system warming, without AGW.
@8n4n08 LMFAO the last 10 years? hahahahahahahaha again you have no fucking clue how climate change works, god damn your stupidity is again astounding. and now you are throwing commonly debunked myths such as the solar system is warming? that shit was debunked years ago due to some planets are actually cooling. god damn you are living back in the 80s, half the shit you are spewing has been debunked. watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
@CannibalShinobi I don't think it was debunked with scientific evidence, as with the climategate affair being debunked. This video here highlights all the crimes of the climategate clique and yet you still go along with it, this attest to your deep stupidity.
Ok, here one that is very hard to debunk, because I have the figures, 96% of greenhouse gases is water vapor, debunk that fuckwit.
Show me that mankind contributes more than a fraction to the carbon cycle ...go-on.
@8n4n08 Oh yeah and check out the c02 is green website, you never seem to get to the real substance, you hang around the weak points. Try and debunk lindzen satellite data of thirty years, not land-based measurements from urban heat, and not models, satellite dat of thirty years.
Greenman and the other vid you linked to are the only true believers, they "debunk" alot of shit like the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD, it happened and neither you or your stupid-ass propaganda vids can change that.
@8n4n08 "There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years." Europe =/= globe, when you are cunts going to figure that out?
@CannibalShinobi There were grape growers in the North of England you fukin retard, your propaganda bullshit artist HAVE NOT put the MWP to rest. It was warmer than today as England is CURRENTLY experiencing it's coldest winter in DECADES. I asked for a paper, because there are so many papers on the MWP that the burden is on you to disprove the status quo.
The MWP period happened, WHY is GREENLAND called Greenland?, when today it is covered in ICE?for all your talk and lies it lives
@8n4n08 holy shit you must be a troll. once again cunt, EUROPE=/= GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. get that through your fucking skull. really hot in one place meant that it was extremely cold in another, and in the middle we get the AVERAGE for GLOBAL. actually did you know that grapes can grow in england now? english-winedotcom. the ice caps that cover 80% of greenland are well over hundreds of thousands of years old...
@CannibalShinobi It is not "rising now" england is in the grip of one of it's coldest winters in decades, your believers suggest that AGW may have paused, most intelligent people would see that it was bullshit. The slight warming trend finished a deacade ago, the planet IS NOT warming. Cancun Mexico, where the latest climate summit was held was experiencing the COOLEST summer on RECORD, since the 1600s!!!!!!
This was published as ironice on a mainstream news site, use google!!!
@8n4n08 again YOUR ARE FUCKING RETARDED. stop going by local weather reports for the global temps you cunt. holy shit that is the first mistake you dipcunts just cant get passed. you simply dont understand that cancun doesn't represent the world. where i live, seattle, washington, we had our record hottest summer in 2009, so i guess according to your logic the planet must be heating up, right?
@CannibalShinobi Wow, your opinion and trolling really helps establish your falacious case that the MWP did not happen; unfortunately it is still the view-point of most scientist that it did. You research what statistically significant means yet?, or visit c02 is green; because the last paper I saw by the AGW crowd (testing the impact of AGW on rainforest) demonstrated "inconclusive results", and then you have websites like c02 is green, demonstrating why their hypothesis was UNSUPPORTED.
@8n4n08 so you didn't watch the video that i posted that explains the very quote you keep rambling about. statistically significant doesn't mean shit. again watch the video numb nuts, maybe you might learn something about the whole source of that bullshit. CO2 is green? HAHAAHAHA they claim its green because plants need it to grow? you do realize that all the extra shit in the air is what plants dont take in, right? whats next? going to say pumping large amount of O2 is also green?
@CannibalShinobi No, co2 is green is a collection of papers showing that China has increased it's farming land due to INCREASED carbon.
You obviously haven't done any course within a science program or a statistics course in higher education Statistical Significance is how scientist check their hypotheses, if you want to do an experiment and a result is not statistically significant IT MEANS THE HYP IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA you fukin halfwit, you know nothing of the scientific method.
@8n4n08 AGAIN WATCH THE VIDEO YOU CUNT. the data for 10 years is not significant to conclude global warming, its significant to say that it has warmed in those 10 years, but not statistically significant for the last 100 years you fucking moron. go to the actual article, its linked in the video i sent you. you are simply avoiding it. its all about context and you are purposely misusing quotes.
@CannibalShinobi I am not going to watch it, I am obviously your superior in scientific understanding and comprehension, you're a psychotic retard, believe what you want ...you obviously have no power anyways.
@8n4n08 haha you couldn't even get the name right of a scientist you were gawking about, let alone be "superior" to me in anything else. you go after me for not visiting that website, BTW i did, but you wont even watch a little video about the quote that you like to throw around? you keep talking about statistical significance, as if it has anything to do with the actual data. and you keep telling some bullshit about excess CO2 magically being green withno explanation. you are far from superior.
@CannibalShinobi How do scientist test their data against their hypothesis?; they use something called statistics, and statistical significance is very basically a measure of the data against the hypothesis. I CAN NOT MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE, quote from you "you keep talking about statistical significance, as if it has anything to do with the actual data"; you don't realise how insanely stupid this comment is because you know NOTHING about the scientific method, my understanding is WELL beyond yours
@8n4n08 again you are fucking retarded, go to the fuck article you dipcunt. again you are running from the truth. statistical significance has nothing to do with that. its simply the chance of background noise affecting the experiment you fucking idiot. god damn you're so fucking stupid. you lack any form of comprehension and your hypocritical bullshit of not being open to evidence or explanation by proponents shows that you are no proponent of anything scientific.
@CannibalShinobi Statistics is used to determine the direction of data, chance does come into it, but I dont feel like reviewing my stats notes to educate some loser teenage moron. You did a quick search and have no idea what you are talking about.
@8n4n08 your stupidity is just simply astounding. in context, being statistically significant meant to be 95% sure that the warming shown in the data was not caused by background noise. it meant absolutely nothing about the actual significance of the warming or how much it had warmed, which was what you were going for wh
much respect for corbett!
SprayOClockNews 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 4 weeks ago
@checkyoursources I am limited by my posts, so just read Monckton's debriefing and observe the figures vs. the lies and deceit being propagated by the IPCC and it's cohorts.
dudeinco 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dudeinco Disproving monckton: 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the MOST LIKELY dominant forcing. 2) humans have been the most likely driver since the 1970's. 3) Since the 1970's temps have risen faster than at any time since modern records began. (WMO) 4) Global warming since 1995 'now significant' BBC news 5) 2010 was 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. (WMO)
checkyoursources 2 months ago
Let's get the truth behind the debate. The AGW was built on the premises of a garbage piece of analytical equation (the hockey stick), was promoted by one of the top American "carbon footprint" offenders, and was created from a rag-tag environmentalist group based on bad data, was sold to the media and over-hyped, was promoted throughout the schooling system, and developed a religious following. watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related
I don't drink Kool-Aide
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco AGW as a theory has been around a lot longer than "carbon footprints" and the hockey stick paper in 1998, plus there have been a number of independent proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources You are still reading the UNIPCC / political inspired viewpoint on everything from data analysis to gathering. wwwdotplantsneedco2dotorg/defaultdotaspx?menuitemid=371 The other side is rarely heard. Why? Because there's no money to be made there.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources In reference to the *ACTUAL* 8 year downturn in temperature:
"A few years’ downtrend cannot be naively extrapolated. However, taken with the fact that the 30-year uptrend was at a rate below the uptrend observed in the 1920s and 1930s, the current downtrend notwithstanding the continuing and increase in CO2 concentration indicates a growing likelihood that CO2 cannot be influencing surface temperatures to the extent imagined by the IPCC."
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources scienceandpublicpolicyDOTorg/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefingDOThtml
I'd say "check your sources" and follow the trail.
dudeinco 2 months ago
And here it is, November 2011, and sure enough - the Climatic Research Unit's data shows global warming is a fact after all. The nay-sayers are out of luck.
Jazzycat47 4 months ago
@Jazzycat47 Right - the Sun has nothing to do with temperatures on Earth.
clint525fuller 2 months ago
@donwest420 no shit. obama got the nobel peace prize, and he said that the war in iraq would be a thing of the past 16 months after he went in office, and yet our brave troops r still there. enough of the fucking democrats lying their way 2 office, let's get a Libertarian elected!
inrwizards 5 months ago
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. B Star Sientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste it is completely safe NO Fukushima here. It is very cheap to produce so if you care about the cost of your energy you will want this.
See website "Star Scientific Limited"
Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath"
Youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
2110kop 7 months ago
In the Atheist States of America, there is still a need for 'faith' and belief in 'global-warming/save the earth' is there to fulfill that need.
ThatMiserableCat 9 months ago
The scientists involved were cleared of any wrongdoing by five indepenedent investigations. Not one scientific academy disagrees that human emissions are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. The Sun has not been the primary driver for decades: Read Lockwood 2008, Frolich 1998, Haigh 2003, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
checkyoursources 10 months ago 3
@checkyoursources Right, because a fact check that animals (specifically cattle) actually produce more harmful emissions than humans is never worked into these "human based equations" are they? And they cleared all the scientists of wrong doing? So who was the scapegoat for the obvious forgeries and misleading results? No one? So sweeping this under the table keeps everyone warm and cozy knowing where this nation and every other nation's money is being funneled through?
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases (UN) that cause global warming so not sure how you got a figure that they produce more than all the human activities?
Eating less meat is good for the environment.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources You warming alarmists are sheep. Cattle bred by a factory. In this case, it's the institution. They fill you up with bull and indoctrinate you since kindergarten and you follow blindly.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Anything constructive to say or perhaps some peer reviewed evidence for your comments?
p.s. I'm not alarmist, I'm just cautious and negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Actually, being a vegetarian causes humans to produce more gas. The majority of which being comprised of Methane and CO2 (mind you, CO2 being called the "deadly gas" by alarmists). So I wouldn't be jumping on that so quickly. Here's to your question: wwwdotindependentdotcodotuk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco you have changed your argument from "cattle actually produce more harmful emissions than humans" to "transport emissions are less than cows" both of which are insignificant and incorrect compared to the main contributors i.e. electricity and heating (SEE: World GHG Emissions Flow Chart - World Resources Institute). A vegetarian diet produces less GHG's than a meat eater's according to every national science academy on the planet. p.s. your own comment disproves itself.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources If we are talking about electricity and heating, and not what humans consider (generalization) the greatest threat (vehicles), then let me ask you this: How is it you'd be typing if that was a valid concern of yours personally?
Vegetarians themselves produces more GHG, and that was the point I was trying to make (more out of jest). I know organizations like PETA disdain the meat eater with arguments of animals being raised for consumption causing more "gas."
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco nope as stated a meat eater eats food that has been fed on plants so of course the energy input and therefore GHG output is higher for meat eaters. See: Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment Am J Clin Nutr September 2003 vol. 78 no. 3 660S-663S for evidence.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources While we are talking about two different effects, I will offer this: "The problem is the body's inability to fully digest the complex carbohydrates so abundant in the vegetarian diet and the consequent excessive production of gases such as hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane." Mine is a joke wrapped in truth. You are trying to argue sustainability based on food source.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Also, I'm not particularly interested in "scientific consensus." Therein lies the problem with the system. Multi-trillion dollar drains on nations throughout the globe with agendas such as billion dollar research studies and "carbon tax" make the agendas so clear, you'd think any rational human would be able to see the guise. The problem is that we mandate the feeding of such agendas into the school systems, so people are thoroughly conditioned.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Lets check your consistency of argument: If you went to a doctor for cancer treatment and he said the concensus was a particular type of treatment would you ignore that advice and go with your own ideas?
3 million die prematurely annually from fossil fuel air pollution, why would you want to keep using fossil fuels when they have killed so many?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources 3 Million what die prematurely from fossil fuel? XD Consensus on facts (i.e. MMWR) is not the same as general accepted consensus of opinion based on theory.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeincoRead: WHO data: Air quality and healthFact sheet N°313
Updated September 2011
It goves human premature deaths from air pollution.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Still speculation, although *somewhat* believable. Attributing deaths to AGW chemicals is a bit of a leap. Knowing that releasing chemicals "harmful for human inhalation" attributes to a poorer quality of life is common sense. Stating that items like CO2 is the cause of millions of deaths is harmful to ones intelligence.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco I didn't state CO2 was the cause if death?! I stated "fossil fuel" pollution is harmful and the effects of excess CO2 are harmful in the long term. Fossil fuels are more than just CO2 and the cost of clean fossil fuels prohibits them economically. p.s. I recently read that Oxygen levels worldwide have been falling.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources I've been reading that last statement for the past decade. I also read that dinosaurs were riding around in semi-trucks, which caused the O2 levels in the ocean to deplete in the prehistoric age. Now we know why the warming cycle happened during that time period (I mean dinos must have had HUGE vehicles). We also know that global warming causes global cooling, so there you go - their ignorance was their downfall. Mysteries of the universe solved.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, our CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2 so thanks for reinforcing that.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Ultimately what you and others do is mistake FACT from THEORY. Fact states that millions die from lung cancer each year. Fact states that of those that died of lung cancer, most are/were chronic smokers. Theory states that CO2 causes global warming. Theory ignores the Earth's natural balance, the next upcoming cycle (which isn't a warm one), and basis itself on "facts" collected on improper testing, and goes even to the point of what we see in this video to maintain.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. AGW is a theory, but it happens to be the current most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. No natural cause theory has been empirically shown to account for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources You are making the leap that the explanation for all the world's climate change is based on human interaction. How did the world manage to change it's climates prior to human existence? What was the explanation for the warming that occurred during prehistoric periods (dinosaur flatulence)? AGW theorists do not take into account natural cycles, environmental variables, ocean and astronomical anomalies that are far more powerful than human influence.
dudeinco 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dudeinco "the explanation for all the world's climate change is based on human interaction" actually I stated: AGW is the current most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's, which isn't the same as saying ALL?!
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing (in the same way that deaths from bombs are not natural while the black death was natural.)
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Let me put it this way: I've been fed the cock and bull since I was in grade school. We were taught that in 20 years, if things didn't change, we'd all be dead on a planet that was essentially a furnace. Fast forward two decades: Now I'm hearing that all the changes (hot or cold, tornadoes, earth quakes) come about from this AGW god like super-power. It reins in the realm of politics and money. Nothing ever comes from either but fear mongering.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Don't get me wrong. I'm not against cleaner skies, or against regulating emissions. I'm against the balogna. The fear tactic that we are all going to die at the hands of some invisible bogeymonster created by the likes of our own exhalation biproduct. I know that 71% of this planet is made up of ocean which produces the majority of our oxygen. I find reads such as: wwwdotcanadafreepressdotcom/index.php/article/26571 intriguing from parties that do not...
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources ...benefit from the AGW propaganda, fear mongering, reputation, or loss of large grant money. It is no secret (or it shouldn't be) that any member of the scientific community that has spoken out against AGW has had funding lost from government grants. This isn't about the planet, it's about money and politics.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Lindzen is still funded as it Christy. Please name 5 prominent climatologists that have actually lost govt funding?
p.s. who has more money to spend oil companies (who want to keep using fossil fuels) or governments?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources American Association of State Climatologists (try looking up all the members that have lost their positions due to being associated)
The purported shortages have allowed them to artificially increase prices well beyond where they reasonably should be. Between AGW and shortage beliefs, oil has increased it's profits 4x in areas that this normally would not have been considered reasonable increase due to "precious commodity" status.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Do you HONESTLY believe the line that "oil companies can [will] be taxed out of existence?" That's political fodder, feeding the money machine.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco The idea is not to tax them out of existence, it is to make them invest in carbon low/free energy with their profits. Surely you appreciate that we are going to have to shift across sometime so why not do so now while oil is still affordable?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources An alternative would be great (and I don't believe in the CO2 bunk, but I'll go with you on the harmful pollutant front). The problem that I see, is who is offering this solution. Was not part of Obama's speech: "We will tax the oil companies out of existance?" Don't say no, because I watched it live ;)
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Also, how does raising taxes and creating artificial shortages help anyone short of the wealthy to exterminate the poor? When prices of gas continually go up, who do you think ACTUALLY suffers the most? The middle class? Somewhat. The rich? NO.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources So show me your alternatives that are truly viable, and we can discuss from there. Is taxing everyone on their carbon footprint solving something? Can you show a correlation between over-taxation and reduced usage throughout history? This is the stand the IPCC and the US (fall in line) is taking. How does this help this planet or your fellow man (assuming they aren't a paid constituent of the IPCC)?
dudeinco 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Lastly, I don't see any oil companies in "danger" of not being allowed to use "fossil" fuels. Do you?
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Also read: Erik Conway. "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change", NASA, 5 December 2008 p.s. Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources And pay attention to this at that debriefing: "The endpoint fallacy: Dr. Rajendra Pachauri likes to use the above IPCC graph to demonstrate his contention that global temperatures are rising at an ever-increasing rate. The deception relies upon the careful selection of endpoints for each successive linear regression.
However, a glance at the IPCC’s own graph of global temperature changes over the past 150 years demonstrates that this is not the case"
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco Dear oh dear, the number of times monckton has been disproved by his own admittance is many. "skepticalscience Monckton Myths" look it up. Monckton's maths is worse than his lies. p.s. Direct from the WMO 2011: In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Theory brought us wonderful things like flat earth and evolution (not part of this debate, just making a comparison). Fact brought us valid programs like "smoking cessation" and "teen education." When the researchers have to resort to what is seen in this video to maintain evidence of their alarmist theories, then it is up to the individual (who is unpaid, and whose work and reputation does not hinge on the theory being true) to look at it skeptically.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco So lest test you objectivity then. You should according to your logic accept the findings of the Berkeley Earth project then as it was carried out by skeptical organsation funding. It found the same warming trends as NASA, NOAA and the met office. See: Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study 21 October 2011 BBC news. the handful of scientists involved in climategate were cleared of any wrongdoing by 7 independent investigations!
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Berkely, regardless of funding source, is driven by political motivators. And when the data is the source of the problem, any skeptical analysis will be forced to reach the same conclusion. As far as scientists being cleared, this should not surprise anyone. CC is a multi-trillion dollar industry that drives politics, power, and international wealth. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it cyclical? Show me sustainable proof that CO2 is a disastrous chemical.
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco You are asking the impossible to have a scientific experiment with no funding whatsoever, why do you doubt the vast majority of climate scientists findings?
Also ask yourself why governments/businesses who make so much money from fossil fuels (dwarfing the small amounts made from carbon credits etc) would be willing to reduce fossil fuel use?
You only have to look to the past to recognise that rapid climate change is harmful to life on Earth.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Rapid? Who informed you that any changes are "rapid" and outside the normal scope of earth cyclical changes? We are talking about fractions. If the changes were "rapid," my earth first teacher in grade school would have been correct in assessing we would all be dead by now (over two decades have past since the doomsayers predicted our demise).
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing beacuse none of the natural causes can account for it. 2) Between today and the last ice age there have been 6C of change, the first 5C took many thousands of years. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about a degree with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. I call the current change "Rapid".
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources And where the hell did you pull your 6C from?
wwwDOTclimate4youDOTcom/images/AllCompared%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979DOTgif
dudeinco 2 months ago
@dudeinco 6C of change since the last ice age is from the EPICA ice core temperature plot although strictly speaking it may be more. Compare the rate of change for the last 100 years (1C in 120 yrs) with the preceeding 10,000 yrs roughly 1 degree of change every 2000 yrs!
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources you should check YOUR SOURCES! try looking up the iron mountain report! climateSCAM.info they specifically said that they need to INVENT environmental problems to implement world government
SprayOClockNews 1 week ago
@checkyoursources I should also note that the earth has been warming 1/2 degree since 1680. I know that is of no concern to IPCC followers as we study only trends pertinent to our times (inconvenient truth).
dudeinco 2 months ago
The climategate ring leader is UEA chancellor Brandon Gough of Common Purpose.
Do a search.
mancroft 11 months ago
@TakeItFromThere,
.
By the way....
My "all caps" words were actually not intended as shouting. It is just to focus on what counts in science. Which is not politics or persons but verifiable and accurate scientific measurments plus verifiable and accurate indepedent scientific verification. Followed by a scientifical credible conclusion that explains the measured and verified observations. That is science! Notice the absolute absense of terms like "carbon tax" and other red herrings like that.
wimahlers 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TakeItFromThere.
.
"Simply repeating yourself over and over and over again does not make me a believer. "
.
Yes. But the irony is is the reason I am shouting and the reason that I repeat myself is because the same excuses are repeated over and over again. In contrast, rarely, if ever, has any AGW denier ever provided a plausible cause for the rate of increase of global temperature. Other than the simplistic answer "the sun". Of which every scientific source agrees it is not sufficient.
wimahlers 11 months ago
@TakeItFromThere,
.
"Galileo"
.
Are we back to that red herring again? Again:
Global warming is CONFIRMED by years of MEASUREMENTS of indepedent scientific resources and independent scientific disciplices.
The CURRENT MEASURED global warming is FASTER then any KNOWN natural warming cycle ever measured by many of the SAME scientific techniques. So what is the CAUSE for this extreme rate of global warming? The increasing CO2 is a known STRONG greenhouse gas that corrolates with this rate.
wimahlers 11 months ago 2
@wimahlers < --- tubers!! PAID SHILL ALERT!!!
SprayOClockNews 1 week ago
@SprayOClockNews
.
"PAID SHILL ALERT!!!"
.
What the hack are you talkiing about?
Corbett is either misinformed, uneducated or, Zeus forbids, lying. I strongly advise him to verify each statement he annouce by means of multiple accredited subject matter knowledgeable sources before he makes his claims public and embarrasses himself.
Verify!
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers EVERYTHING has been verified!
MORE CLIMATEGATE!. US Govt. agencies involved in Data Manipulation FRAUD! NASA. NOAA
put that title in search and see how beautifully EVERYTHING has been verified! Nebraska MAN FRAUD ANYONE? rofl! over 30,000 scientists suing al conman gore ring a bell? we the people KNOW about you dis-info FAKE scientists, next thing you will tell us that the twin towers PANCAKED, LMAO! Oh, and smokestack excrement [fluoride] being called a NUTRIENT by UN?!?
SprayOClockNews 1 week ago
@SprayOClockNews You are confusing issues here. Fluoride, Nebraska man are subjects for other topics.
Fraud of NASA/NOAA data is on topic. Your accusation, therefore your responsibility to list the references. Please list the verifiable and verified credible references on topic and in context.
wimahlers 1 week ago
@wimahlers i already did, but since you missed it, here it is again:
MORE CLIMATEGATE!. US Govt. agencies involved in Data Manipulation FRAUD! NASA. NOAA
put that in search, watch that to see about the PROOF of the fraud, take care ;D
SprayOClockNews 1 week ago
Comment removed
wimahlers 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
"put that in search, watch that to see about the PROOF of the fraud, take care ;D"
.
No! Your claim. Your responsibility to list the sources.
Again, please list the verifiable and verified credible references on topic and in context.
Note: google is NOT a reference.
wimahlers 1 week ago
Globe International & UEA ... lol - what a shower of bastards.
LondonDada 11 months ago
@TakeItFromThere,
.
"There is no concensus regarding the cause of global warming."
.
So you claim.However, I bet you cannot find even one accredited subject knowledgeable university or other subject knowledgeable scientific institution that does not CONFIRM the AGW is a scientific fact.
I even doubt you are able to list 20 subject knowledgeable scientists, thus active in the scientific field of climatology, that DENY this accepted scientific fact.
PROVING me wrong would be an argument.
wimahlers 11 months ago
@TakeItFromThere there is a scientific consensus on this issue, and if you follow the work of scientists you will see how the evidence they're finding is getting stronger all the time. Sure, there are vested interests at play on both sides of this debate, and I don't agree with the agendas of politicians on these matters, left or right. But the simple fact here is that man is having a negative effect on the environment, at all levels - from the animal kingdom to the climate.
sugarcanegray 11 months ago
@sugarcanegray The debate is far from over. But when will we get to Manbearpig? That seems to be a more pressing issue considering it's a godless, marauding, half man, half bear, half pig that will certainly be the downfall of us all.
joker52mlb 11 months ago
@joker52mlb well climate change study continues, and as time passes, the evidence gets stronger and stronger.
As for Manbearpig... who knows?
sugarcanegray 11 months ago
@sugarcanegray You're a damn fine blues guitarist by the way.
joker52mlb 11 months ago
@joker52mlb :) cheers!
sugarcanegray 11 months ago
@donwest420,
.
"Now, the sun IS the cause, because the sun's solar activity was on an increase during the years we had that warming. The earth is cooling back down now, because that solar activity has subsided."
.
I strongly advise you to research this claim because every scientific resource, including NASA, all state that the current global warming cannot be explained with solar activity alone.
If you have a scientific resource, which coloroftexas is not, claiming otherwise then show it.
wimahlers 11 months ago
Manbearpig should be the real issue hear. Not gobal go green climate warming change at the moment, although it is a pressing matter. Climate change will cause us to have hot summers AND hurricanes. The kind of shit mankind has never had to deal with before. The ice caps are melting, and have been since the early 1800's, and it's because we drive cars. The fish will all die from too much water in the ocean. It all makes sense and it's peer reviewed too. I'm serial people, the debate is over.
joker52mlb 11 months ago
Global Climate Warming Change is real...damn you!
RadioFlyffer 11 months ago
Earth Hour is just another ploy to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
blt40 11 months ago
Earth Hour: a glimpse of the future when ordinary people can no longer pay for electricity due to carbons taxes!
gwarmingscam 11 months ago
Sorry for the multiple posts, but it would appear I didn't address one of the key issues brought up. Here's the big secret: The oil industry AND the government LOVES the GW and anti-oil types. Artificial shortages to create price hikes? Increased taxation rates on what has become a necessity? Maybe you need to look a little further than the surface to see who is truly benefiting the oil industry. Unfortunately the losers in all of this is the destitute families who can't afford this joke.
dudeinco 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42 Any opposition to GW has been given the medieval "flat earth" reception by the government and the scientific community. Is it a conspiracy? Yes, and no. If the data doesn't correlate with the theory, it's dismissed as ludicrous, brushed off, or "manipulated" to support the theory. If you want to maintain your scientific notoriety, you don't question it. It's mob mentality, and there's a lot of money pushing this theory. Just look at how much is demanded from countries..
dudeinco 1 year ago
@dudeinco well, the opposition of GW has a great interest in supressing the science of global warming as well(the oil industry for example). This looks very simlar to when it was discovered that cigarrets increase the risk of getting cancer , but the tobacco industrie did all it could to distort the facts and claimed the scientists where divided and not sure on the issue. Interestinlgy most politicians who oppose global waming now recieve big donations from the oil industry. coincidence?
BasicSpace42 1 year ago
@dudeinco While there are respected sientists who oppose the idea of anthropgenic climate change, they are by far in the minority. There is currently no other theory that explains the current warming and EVERY scientist agrees that there is warming right now.
Also, science doesn't work the way you described it. Data cannot simply get mainpulated or dismissed. That is where the peer rewiew process is for. And I think it is highly unlikely that thousands of papers somehow avoided the peer rewiew.
BasicSpace42 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42 First of all, you didn't watch the video. The data is falsified and destroyed. The scientists who have spoken out have lost their funding. You tell me, if agreeing with something helped you keep your job, how hard would you oppose it? MOST people wouldn't. Hence, "scientific consensus." The majority agrees they'd rather keep their job.
dudeinco 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42 How many men of "science" ademently opposed the flat earth theory when it was their status in the community that was on the line?
dudeinco 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42 Did you, or anyone else offering rebuttal actually WATCH the video or READ the transcripts from climategate, or are you quite content to have your head stuck in the sand on this issue?
dudeinco 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42
The weather stations used, (when they actually bothered), were mostly placed in warm or hot areas. This is because that since the break up of the USSR many, if not all, of the stations that were in cold or freezing climates were closed. It's a scam. If you are happy having your head up your arse then fine, but not me.
I'm off to light my coal fire, go for a ride in my 2 gallon per mile truck whilst smoking a cigar and farting the national anthem...
TheEnglishTaxpayer 11 months ago
@TheEnglishTaxpayer Using a logical fallacy is always helpfull in refuting someones point, isn't it? -.-
BasicSpace42 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BasicSpace42
The weather stations used, (when they actually bothered), were mostly placed in warm or hot areas. This is because that since the break up of the USSR many, if not all, of the stations that were in cold or freezing climates were closed. It's a scam. If you are happy having your head up your arse then fine, but not me.
I'm off to light my coal fire, go for a ride in my 2 gallon per mile truck whilst smoking a cigar and farting the national anthem...
TheEnglishTaxpayer 11 months ago
Just a quick question. If global warming is a hoax, how did they (whoever they are) manage to fake thousands of scientific papers from dozent different scientific fields that support global warming? That must be by far the biggest conspiracy of all time. And it doesn't even work well, since many people, politicians included, doubt global warming. So it must also be the worst conspiracy of all time ...
BasicSpace42 1 year ago
@BasicSpace42 Grant money is pulled from the opposition to the theory, and trillions is funneled away from countries in the name of GW. It doesn't take a genius to see the motivating factor.
dudeinco 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donwest420,
.
"It's time for you to do your own research, little boy. Us adults can't hold your hand forever."
.
Thank you for the advise, but I have done the research and found nothing, other than unsubstantiated rumors often proved to be wrong.
So please now present the research on which you base your claim.
It goes without saying, of course, that this is verifiable and verified, c.q. peer-reviewed, relevant science. This is, of course, what every skeptic rightly demands.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@wimahlers Man, you must have been up all night fuming over donwest's comments. get a life, you fucking loser. al gore is a joke, and everyone that believes in that phony shit he pushes is a joke. get some pussy, and stop obsessing over al gores dick.
dagrimmreefah 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@dagrimmreefah,
.
"and stop obsessing over al gores dick."
.
Ignoring the foul language I fully agree!
Some people have some morbid fascination for Al gore.
But as I said before and now say again:
I refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the official statements and position of accredited and well respected scientific institutions such as the royal society, NAS, NOAA and all others as well as the position of all respected universities all over the world.
wimahlers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dagrimmreefah,
.
"Man, you must have been up all night fuming over donwest's comments"
.
Two remarks:
a) It is day time where I live (=The Netherlands).
b) I don't have to "fume" over donwest's questions. To fume about it requires a challenge. A challenge must include a well written argument void of personal emotion, void of personal bias and void of gullibility. And frankly donwest has not produced such an argument yet.
wimahlers 1 year ago
@dagrimmreefah wow, you're really obsessed about al gore dick fag
Niven110 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donwest420,
.
"AGW belief is all about giving a retard, Gore, a nobel prize to give that shill more false credibility, so he can get dupes like you to accept a global carbon tax. That's the down and dirty of it. More evidence supports THAT theory than the man made global warming theory."
.
Fascinating conclusion. But where is your evidence for your claim?
Don't just talk about it, prove it!
Prove that there is: "More evidence supports THAT theory ..."
wimahlers 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@donwest420,
.
"Nice try condescending someone else, because you're too fucking stupid to understand what he (colorsoftexas) was saying."
.
So what does he say?
How does he explain that solar activity and global warming are out of synch?
How does he explain that the climate is warming at an unprecedented pace?
What does he really say?
What does he know more that is overlooked by the vast majority of scientists and the scientific consensus?
Don't be condescending yourself, enlighten me!
wimahlers 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@donwest420,
.
The sun is the cause of all weather. Hell, it is the cause of our existence, hell, it is the cause of ALL existence on earth.
But the amount of heat given by the sun retained by the earth is NOT the only factor determining climate. On a long term scale continental drift has a major impact, oceanic currents, precession and other atronomical cycles, geologic activities and the type of life producing gasses. And at this moment in time Homo sapiens is producing too much CO2.
wimahlers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donwest420,
.
What is it with this morbid facination of Al Gore. Who is he? He is NOT a scientist.
I refer to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the official statements and position of accredited and well respected scientific institutions such as the royal society, NAS, NOAA and all others as well as the position of all respected universities all over the world. Open your mind, the world is bigger then just Al Gore!
What do you know more or better then these institutions? Tell me!
wimahlers 1 year ago
Global WARMongers!
hellotommy 1 year ago
(cont) ...on the variable that was controlled for, Ie, the diff between the two conditions was amount of carbon. If it wasnt SS it would mean that carbon has NO EFFECT on plant growth and therefore there is NO NEED to know the diff in the cond, as any difference is natural varibility or another factor, that could be controlled for/tested in another experiment. next u could test for "amount of ligh" and see if that is a factor for plant growth, if ss= is a factor, not ss= not a factor/no effect.
8n4n08 1 year ago
(cont) beyond background interference as you called it. This also ,eans that co2 IS a factor in plant growth, it HAS an effect, as there WAS a difference between the two conditions. The direction showed objectively that the plants in high carbon condition were greater (could be recorded as height of plant as raw data before stat interpretation) compared to height of plant in low carbon condition. This is why SS is important. If not SS it means there was no difference on the variable that was
8n4n08 1 year ago
(cont) but as I have pointed-out; in real life experiments, there is a sig difference between plants in the high carbon and low carbon conditions, unsurprisingly as plants breathe co2. This is why I directed you to co2isgreen, there is even a vid on youtube somewhere showing timelapse camera comparing the two conditions (high carbon/low carbon) and PROVES beyond a doubt that "extra" carbon leads to greater plant diversity/growth. There is a sig difference, beyond natural variability or backgroun
8n4n08 1 year ago
(cont) (how much co2 resulted in how much growth) you only need to do this when there is a significant difference, as you should understand now. Because if there is no sig difference than the hyp was not supported and any difference that may have been present was due to natural variablilty, and a repeat of the experiment would continue to show no difference, MEANING (if there was no diff between the conditions) that increased/decreased co2 had NO effect on plants, ie. that co2 is not a factor.
8n4n08 1 year ago
(cont) because their results were not showed no sig difference between the two populations it means carbon would have NO EFFECT on plant life, however they covered up their findings by saying "inconclusive", we know this because there are more papers (and vids on youtube of a plant growing in a hogh carbon environ compared to low carbon) demonstrating the reverse hyp; that is "high carbon" areas had sig diff, or sig more plant diversity/growth. NOW we can calculate what this mean (how much
8n4n08 1 year ago
(cont) ...greater than chance, as the is random variability between the two areas, scoentist like to makimise the power of an exp by eliminating many varibles, to increase the diff, to allow a diff to be "seen", of it is there. So for the hyp to be supported you would expect (if AGW fan) for there to be Significantly LESS plants in the higher carbon environment. A well designed and realistic exp was conduxted to determine just this, and found NO sig Diff(actually the report stated "inconclusive)
8n4n08 1 year ago
OK, i changed my mind read this to understand sicence (basic sense) an example not the actual exp: They have the hyp that due to CC there will be less plant diversity, they make observations or take measurements, say the number of plants in a given area, and compare this to the number of plants in a given area with more carbon. Now they compare the results using stats. To SUPPORT the hyp there would have to be a meaningful diff between the 2 areas. Meaningful difference is a diff that is greater
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 o wrong on the first post. sorry but no, even if the data supported the hypothesis there is still the chance that the difference was caused by background anomalies or the lack of further data. SS, especially in this context, deals with the lack of data points. the data still showed warming moron.
"This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but is not significant at the 95% significance level."
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi You dont even understand the not SS at the 95% alpha level, sop dont pretend. You have done NO science courses in higher education, you are NOT in a science programme; it is dead fukin obvious. I am not going to waste anymore time with you
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 i didn't watch your video because you don't watch anything i post you hypocritical cunt. FFS how the fuck do you expect people to be interested in seeing any evidence you bring with your argument if you admittedly wont give theirs the time of the day? i have given you a full 10 minute video explaining the quote in question, explaining SS and giving many examples of when it is used and how it is used, and even a damn link to the full article to present the full context.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
Hotspots were the crux of AGW fans once observations were failing to prove AGW, they made-up some ad-hoc explanation, saying that the upper atmosphere was "where the heat was trapped" this was also found to be a lie as NO hotspots were found.
C02isgreen has a bunch of papers on the +'s of extra carbon for plant life, and ofcourse, life in general. You can't win CANNIBAL, you are too stupid. Find me evidence of hotspots, find me the recent paper where the AGW crowd had "inconclusive" results.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 Your elegant rhetorics put me to shame. Again. Instead of steaming, go make a better video that proves your case with science.
sphisis 1 year ago
Water vapor makes-up 96% of greenhouse gases, and humans contribute a fraction to the carbon cycle (less than 4% of greenhouse gases). Thereby only a fraction to the "greenhouse effect".
Would anyone suggest that we tax water vapor, do people know that we wouldnt inhabit this planet if there was no green-house effect.
Are people aware that there was a warm period before industralisation, and that the just past warm period was seen on other solar bodies and is related to the activity of the sun.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 how much water vapor do you release when you burn fossil fuels?... AND generate steam to power turbines? Also lets remember the destruction of carbon sinks means more airbound water vapour.
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
@MarkB1ngham The question is HOW MUCH CARBON do you release you half-wit, that's easy, mankinds' contribution is very small compared to the amount released by biological and geological mechanisms.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 NO I'm asking how much water vapour is released when you burn gas oil or coal and how much water vapour is released from steam powered turbines?Forests are part of the water cycle. Are these NOT factors in the anthropogenically generated GH gas equation hmmm? what is "halfwitted" about these questions?
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
@MarkB1ngham I find your question difficult to understand, I can't determine what side you are coming from, do you see water vapor as something that should be demonised, taxed and regulated?
And no, generally the models do not account for this in the greenhouse effect, it is solely attributed to the small scapegoat known as carbon; probably because this is easy to tax and easy to point at mankind for.
They're also unconcerned with small amounts of the toxins that are released when burning coal.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 Oh and they are also uninterested in the activity of the Sun, one would think this is another (major) factor, as with water vapour, but I haven't come across anything other than the carbon hypothesis in the mainstream. I have rarely seen the hypothesis that "the sun activity may be responsible".
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 I'm no scientist, I dropped out of bsc environmental science hnrs' in the 2nd year but I recall from a diy tv show that gas fires and cookers caused damp problems in houses. I can't seem to find any data on the link between burning fossil fuels and the GH gas water vapour in the atmosphere, it MUST be a factor. (Fossil fuels don't cause acidity?)
MarkB1ngham 1 year ago
@MarkB1ngham Yes, it is definetly a factor in the greenhouse effect, the major one besides the sun, as 96% of greenhouse gases are water vapour; but no-one would propose a tax on water vapour, as water, like carbon, is obviously essential to life.
I don't know about fossil fuels and acidity, I am honest in saying that I -believe- they will cause acidity but I do not care to research this. I do know for a fact that doomsday scenarios of acidic oceans are bullshit, however.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@MarkB1ngham Carbon sink is a catchy term that means next to nothing, it is something non-scientific, hopeless minds have caught onto in an effort to sound scientific. Their ill be NO acidification of the oceans, and the carbon sinks are unimportant in a self-balancing cycle. Radiative forcing shows that the more heat that is trapped, the more is radiated-out into space, like all of nature, it is a self-balancing work of genius.
8n4n08 1 year ago
anyone who thinks that "climategate" showed any actual evidence for the non-existence of global warming is a fucking idiot.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi “there has been no statistically significant warming” since 1995, in the words of the now-discredited Climategate “scientist” Phil Jones, you're a fucking idiot. c02 is green dotcom.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 HAHA is that why 1998 was the hottest year on record beating out 1995 by about 0.3°C and every year after 1995 has been significantly hotter? look at the data, or maybe you're just too damn stupid to understand it...
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi Statistically Significant is the key term here, and after 1998 there has been a cooling trend, the summer use to get to nearly 40C but has so far has not even made the 30's this year where I live; but because of liars no-one mentions this facts. You're obviously too stupid to "look at the data" yourself, models do not represent real observations, and as I said real observations do not show the heating you Believe in as part of your religious practice.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 0.3C does not represent a statistically significant trend, as it could be due to artifacts of measurement, or more likely the stupid modeling procedures that goes on. It is not "different" enough to be meaningful, except as a supposed record, which it was only according to one source and for one region, it was not the hottest year in my country.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 yes it is different enough you twat. especially since the whole global warming from 1920 to now is a mere 1.0C. to morons that might not be significant at all, but to people who understand global climate that is extremely significant especially since its such a huge change in only less than 100 years.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@8n4n08 no its not, looking at GLOBAL TEMPS. not your personal weather reports you fucking cunt, there is a warming trend. anyone who uses their own local weather as evidence for or against global warming is simply too fucking stupid and ignorant to carry a conversation with.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi hahaha... say "baaaa". You know what the best way to limit man made CO2 is right?... eliminate man. If you're so concerned, prove it and just go kill yourself please.
ne0teric 1 year ago
@ne0teric you're a fucking moron, why would i even care about global warming if i was going to off myself anyways? the whole global warming scare is about people wanting to keep the earth safe in order to save mankinds future. only a complete retard, such as yourself, would suggest killing mankind would accomplish what people who want to fight against global warming want. another moron with the power of anonymity.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi The only way to truly keep earth safe for mankind's future, is to do away with people such as yourself. I like the way you phrase this; "global warming scare"... exactly! Scare, that's all it is... a play on fear. Hmmm... "would suggest killing mankind would accomplish what people who want to fight against global warming want"... Me thinks its not I whom has the extra chromosome here. hahaha Make sure you don't ditch class any more, please.
ne0teric 1 year ago
@ne0teric haha your lack of understanding of basic knowledge of gobal warming is pretty funny, but you lack of basic knowledge of the english language is fucking hilarious. just because its a scare doesn't mean there isn't something to be scared of. but hey, keep running from the facts. have fun trying to remain an elitist asshole while you're pumping gas for someone else for minimum wage you inbred cock mongrel.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi LMFAO...."your lack of understanding of basic knowledge of gobal warming is pretty funny, but you lack of basic knowledge of the english language is fucking hilarious." You're kidding right?... talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Oh, and love the insults!... they make you sound so intelligent.
ne0teric 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi You know nothing about global warming, you're just an illiterate troll. Scientifically illerate as well, DO YOU UNDERSTAND what statistically significant means you fukin half-wit. NO. 100% no, Phil Jones knows what it means, and has stated that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT WARMING for over ten years.
Secondly 96% of greenhouse gases is water vapor and mankind contributes a fraction to the carbon cycle, not-to-mention the solar system warming, without AGW.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 LMFAO the last 10 years? hahahahahahahaha again you have no fucking clue how climate change works, god damn your stupidity is again astounding. and now you are throwing commonly debunked myths such as the solar system is warming? that shit was debunked years ago due to some planets are actually cooling. god damn you are living back in the 80s, half the shit you are spewing has been debunked. watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi I don't think it was debunked with scientific evidence, as with the climategate affair being debunked. This video here highlights all the crimes of the climategate clique and yet you still go along with it, this attest to your deep stupidity.
Ok, here one that is very hard to debunk, because I have the figures, 96% of greenhouse gases is water vapor, debunk that fuckwit.
Show me that mankind contributes more than a fraction to the carbon cycle ...go-on.
Or
Show me the hotspots.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 Oh yeah and check out the c02 is green website, you never seem to get to the real substance, you hang around the weak points. Try and debunk lindzen satellite data of thirty years, not land-based measurements from urban heat, and not models, satellite dat of thirty years.
Greenman and the other vid you linked to are the only true believers, they "debunk" alot of shit like the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD, it happened and neither you or your stupid-ass propaganda vids can change that.
DEBUNK it!
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 "There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years." Europe =/= globe, when you are cunts going to figure that out?
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi There were grape growers in the North of England you fukin retard, your propaganda bullshit artist HAVE NOT put the MWP to rest. It was warmer than today as England is CURRENTLY experiencing it's coldest winter in DECADES. I asked for a paper, because there are so many papers on the MWP that the burden is on you to disprove the status quo.
The MWP period happened, WHY is GREENLAND called Greenland?, when today it is covered in ICE?for all your talk and lies it lives
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 holy shit you must be a troll. once again cunt, EUROPE=/= GLOBAL TEMPERATURES. get that through your fucking skull. really hot in one place meant that it was extremely cold in another, and in the middle we get the AVERAGE for GLOBAL. actually did you know that grapes can grow in england now? english-winedotcom. the ice caps that cover 80% of greenland are well over hundreds of thousands of years old...
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CannibalShinobi MWP happened, it was warmer than today, your lies are finished, MWP. Period.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi It is not "rising now" england is in the grip of one of it's coldest winters in decades, your believers suggest that AGW may have paused, most intelligent people would see that it was bullshit. The slight warming trend finished a deacade ago, the planet IS NOT warming. Cancun Mexico, where the latest climate summit was held was experiencing the COOLEST summer on RECORD, since the 1600s!!!!!!
This was published as ironice on a mainstream news site, use google!!!
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 again YOUR ARE FUCKING RETARDED. stop going by local weather reports for the global temps you cunt. holy shit that is the first mistake you dipcunts just cant get passed. you simply dont understand that cancun doesn't represent the world. where i live, seattle, washington, we had our record hottest summer in 2009, so i guess according to your logic the planet must be heating up, right?
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi Wow, your opinion and trolling really helps establish your falacious case that the MWP did not happen; unfortunately it is still the view-point of most scientist that it did. You research what statistically significant means yet?, or visit c02 is green; because the last paper I saw by the AGW crowd (testing the impact of AGW on rainforest) demonstrated "inconclusive results", and then you have websites like c02 is green, demonstrating why their hypothesis was UNSUPPORTED.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 so you didn't watch the video that i posted that explains the very quote you keep rambling about. statistically significant doesn't mean shit. again watch the video numb nuts, maybe you might learn something about the whole source of that bullshit. CO2 is green? HAHAAHAHA they claim its green because plants need it to grow? you do realize that all the extra shit in the air is what plants dont take in, right? whats next? going to say pumping large amount of O2 is also green?
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi No, co2 is green is a collection of papers showing that China has increased it's farming land due to INCREASED carbon.
You obviously haven't done any course within a science program or a statistics course in higher education Statistical Significance is how scientist check their hypotheses, if you want to do an experiment and a result is not statistically significant IT MEANS THE HYP IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA you fukin halfwit, you know nothing of the scientific method.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 AGAIN WATCH THE VIDEO YOU CUNT. the data for 10 years is not significant to conclude global warming, its significant to say that it has warmed in those 10 years, but not statistically significant for the last 100 years you fucking moron. go to the actual article, its linked in the video i sent you. you are simply avoiding it. its all about context and you are purposely misusing quotes.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi I am not going to watch it, I am obviously your superior in scientific understanding and comprehension, you're a psychotic retard, believe what you want ...you obviously have no power anyways.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 haha you couldn't even get the name right of a scientist you were gawking about, let alone be "superior" to me in anything else. you go after me for not visiting that website, BTW i did, but you wont even watch a little video about the quote that you like to throw around? you keep talking about statistical significance, as if it has anything to do with the actual data. and you keep telling some bullshit about excess CO2 magically being green withno explanation. you are far from superior.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi How do scientist test their data against their hypothesis?; they use something called statistics, and statistical significance is very basically a measure of the data against the hypothesis. I CAN NOT MAKE IT MORE SIMPLE, quote from you "you keep talking about statistical significance, as if it has anything to do with the actual data"; you don't realise how insanely stupid this comment is because you know NOTHING about the scientific method, my understanding is WELL beyond yours
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 again you are fucking retarded, go to the fuck article you dipcunt. again you are running from the truth. statistical significance has nothing to do with that. its simply the chance of background noise affecting the experiment you fucking idiot. god damn you're so fucking stupid. you lack any form of comprehension and your hypocritical bullshit of not being open to evidence or explanation by proponents shows that you are no proponent of anything scientific.
CannibalShinobi 1 year ago
@CannibalShinobi Statistics is used to determine the direction of data, chance does come into it, but I dont feel like reviewing my stats notes to educate some loser teenage moron. You did a quick search and have no idea what you are talking about.
8n4n08 1 year ago
@8n4n08 your stupidity is just simply astounding. in context, being statistically significant meant to be 95% sure that the warming shown in the data was not caused by background noise. it meant absolutely nothing about the actual significance of the warming or how much it had warmed, which was what you were going for wh