Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Right, because oil was never made from fish and lizards. They have produced oil from algae. Bio-diesel as well. As to the abiogenic theory of fossil fuels, no proponent has developed an explanation for biological markers found in oil, gas, etc. see:
http://deepbio.princeton.edu/samp/papers/Sherwood-Lollar.pdf
Organic contamination is the source. Yes there's hydrogen and carbons in fish and lizards. Where did it come from originally I wonder? It seems to me that the raw hydro-carbons would precede organisms. Occam's Razor favours abiotics, why would nature initiate hydro-carbon production and then turn it over to squished fish and lizards when there was already a much more reliable source of power and raw material without the need of life first. Are you saying that the purpose in life for clams and forests was to make bunker C ? I think that's very unlikely.
Last edited:
So it's only contamination when it's found in conventional deposits around the globe? Then when abiogenic pockets of low carbon alkenes are found, suddenly there is no contamination at all? I call Bull $hit on that one.
From their parents, and from the environment.
Yet not all hydrocarbons are the same. If you read the letter to Nature that I linked, this should be obvious...
Occams razor does not favour abiotics. You have to come up with a complicated explanation to explain an absence of what you call contamination in all abiogenic gas deposits only, and not in conventional deposits.
Nature doesn't turn anything over. Living matter is still chemistry. And it comes up with different reactions than physical chemistry.
No, the purpose in life for trees and clams is to grow, and reproduce. To continue the biological reactions.
Last edited:
Show me where the IPCC is recommending genocide as a remedy to climate change.
The basic thermodynamics on this issue are clear, you increase the energy carrying capacity of the atmosphere and the global temperature average goes up.
The predictions made several decades ago are coming to pass:
Glaciers are melting and so are the polar ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica. The Greenland icecap outflow galciers are moving twice as fast as they did two decades ago and the ice sheet is losing 150 billion tons more ice than it receives in snow each year. The Jacobshavn glacier alone in western Greenland pours a massive 40 billion tons of ice into the sea each year. How much energy do you think it takes to melt that much ice? Humans put many times more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than geological activity each year, humankind has become one of the major drivers of environmental change on the planet.
Our weather is becoming more variable and severe, I really wonder where some of you are posting from as you don't seem to be on planet Earth... maybe the internet has gone interplanetary now, it would explain Dark Beaver at the very least.
The sea level is rising, the alarming fact is the IPCC tends to be conservative in its' projections, and we could see much more than the 1 meter increase in sea level projected for 2100, it all comes down to what happens to the ice sheets and as we're beginning to find out, the dynamic action of water can cause changes in thick ice sheets thought impossible just a decade ago.
The world is changing, whether or not we want to accept it doesn't matter. What matters is what we choose to do about it. We can pretend the problem doesn't exist or claim it's not our fault, but that's denial on a historical scale.
An addiction to oil, coal and natural gas makes sense from a purely human point of view, but we depend on the global environment as a whole for our existance. Just focusing on shortsighted human needs and interests is going to cost us far more than those short term benefits.
Moving towards a more sustainable energy model in end means more independence and democracy for most as it would remove the fossil fuel monkey off our backs. Like I've already pointed out you can't patent or corner the market on sunlight, once a viable renewable energy system is put in place you can kiss King Coal and Sultan Sludge goodbye forever...which is what this debate is really about.
Heh, the similarity to the arguments made by deniers to the cave men is hilarious! Like the global warming on mars and SUV canard. I didn't think that the nuanced explanations of evidence with observations and theory were that difficult to understand, but maybe I over-estimated the capabilities of the deniers...err cave men.
Uh, yeah, she did say that. AB is part of a geological region, I think, or am I wrong? She also said if rocks produce oil like Beaver says why don't we see oil coming from places where there's a lot of rocks? Nepal and Tibet must have a lot of oil lakes, maybe?
In its fluid state, I agree. Or even when it isn't in the fluid state.
Ever seen a piece of granite or marble crap out any oil?
It looks like the media is getting stronger in retreating from this doomed ship... It's ironic in that they are the ones responsible for promoting the unsubstantiated hype in the first place.
So, he probably knows about the science indicating the health impacts of smoking cigarettes, but he still smokes anyways.
Curious, he doesn't actually propose any policies. Then he bangs on about the IPCC process.
Folks like Walter will still be disagreeing with the established fact after AR15 (the next IPCC report is AR5).
It is difficult, if not an exercise in futility, to attempt policy action(s) in an area that is not understood.
Considering that the IPCC has appointed itself as the global authority on the issue that is (attempting) to ram global policy down the throats of the member nations, it is absolutely necessary to question their position/accuracy on the subject.
So I'm going to assume that you didn't read the actual article that WRM wrote. It's a nonsense diatribe about policy proposals, yet in no way does it critically analyze the effects of such proposals, nor does he offer any alternatives. Instead, it's more garbage about building credibility in the IPCC by including more skeptics.
He only get's it partially right when he explains the media's part in this:
Like WRM did. I mean he can't even get this part right:
In case you hadn't noticed, the chief policy guy on the skeptic side, Bjorn Lomborg, is now squarely in the price on carbon camp. Now squarely in the camp of, spend now to avoid more pain later.
This is sheer nonsense. The IPCC only exists because government's around the world agreed that they needed expert reviews of the state of the science in total.
There are only a handful of other bodies which produce anything close to a review on the scale of what the IPCC produces.
Name any other review you like that we should consider. I'll wait.
He only get's it partially right when he explains the media's part in this:
The media has, for some time been presenting stories as false equivalence between competing ideas. When he says that Revkin has made enemies, it's because he has jumped the shark, attributed false cause to what some of his sources have told him, and drummed up controversy simply to keep his narrative going. That is, he has misrepresented the views of the scientists that he once had greater access to. I mean that's what reporters do, they have to create a narrative. But the narrative of late has been lopsided. To present it it as two sided, and evenly two-sided, is simply false.
Like WRM did. I mean he can't even get this part right:
Again, there are for all intents and purposes, only two voices that the media portray. Skeptics of the science, and proponents. So where are the non-green credible voices? Where are the voices with policy alternatives?
In case you hadn't noticed, the chief policy guy on the skeptic side, Bjorn Lomborg, is now squarely in the price on carbon camp. Now squarely in the camp of, spend now to avoid more pain later.
This is sheer nonsense. The IPCC only exists because government's around the world agreed that they needed expert reviews of the state of the science in total.
There are only a handful of other bodies which produce anything close to a review on the scale of what the IPCC produces.
Name any other review you like that we should consider. I'll wait.
I posted the organizational structure of the IPCC and it's meanderings within the scientific community and world governments a few pages back. Morgan seems to have ignored that and is yet again overdosing on those amnesia pills. Blame it on the western medicine, I guess.
I prefer the decline of reason...the level of scientific literacy is low, though to be fair you don't even need to be at a basic level of scientific literacy to review the structure of an organization.
Here's a fine example of horrid reporting by the media.
Here's the WSJ article:
Climate of uncertainty-
Global warming science is still evolving; will future IPCC reports reflect that?
I mean they can't even get past the sub-heading without asking a question that is easilly answered. The rest of the article follows from the false notion that these uncertainties aren't acknowledged.
See for yourself.
The first assessment report, in 1990:
We are certain of the following: Emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface.
Our judgment is that: Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6°C over the last 100 years, with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980’s.
The size of the warming over the last century is broadly consistent with the prediction by climate models, but is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability…. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.
So, they are actually quite explicit about the state of the science in 1990. Some warming, consistent with models, but indistinguishable from the natural variability in the climate system.
Fast forward, to 1995, and the second assessment for policymakers:
Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between about 0.3 and 0.6°C since the late 19th century; the additional data available since 1990 and the re-analyses since then have not significantly changed this range of estimated increase.
More convincing recent evidence for the attribution of a human effect on climate is emerging from pattern-based studies, in which the modelled climate response to combined forcing by greenhouse gases and anthropogenic sulphate aerosols is compared with observed geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature change. These studies show that such pattern correspondences increase with time, as one would expect, as an anthropogenic signal increases in strength. Furthermore, the probability is very low that these correspondences could occur by chance as a result of natural internal variability only. The vertical patterns of change are also inconsistent with those expected for solar and volcanic forcing.
Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long-term natural variability and the time-evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.
The understanding has evolved, more evidence has accrued, but the uncertainty is still limiting unequivocal attribution because "the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability".
Fast forward now to the third assessment report, in 2001:
Since the release of the Second Assessment Report (SAR4), additional data from new studies of current and palaeoclimates, improved analysis of data sets, more rigorous evaluation of their quality, and comparisons among data from different sources have led to greater understanding of climate change
....
The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C5, 6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects. The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.
...
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis is the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific assessment of past, present and future climate change. The report:
So, again, more understanding, and identifies areas of uncertainty which need to be addressed, and even suggests how to do so. ....
The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C5, 6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects. The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000.
...
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis is the most comprehensive and up-to-date scientific assessment of past, present and future climate change. The report:
- Suggests gaps in information and understanding that remain in our knowledge of climate change and how these might be addressed.
And finally, the fourth assessment released in 2007:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.
Very clearly, as new studies, new sources of data, and most importantly perhaps, as time has progressed, the understanding of our climate has evolved. Many of the uncertainties have been identified and addressed, some remain. The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.
The WSJ article is simply false. Yet it will undoubtedly just reinforce the ignoramuses out there who have never once decided to look for themselves at the actual reports.
Last edited:
You ever heard the expression; garbage in = garbage out... That ought to give you an idea of the IPCC policy.
That is the essence of the article, and yes, I read it with a big smile on my face in my local newspaper.
.. And now the pendulum has swung.... Your sidekick mentalfloss is relegated to relying on youtube as his source for AGW support.
Sad
What a hoot. You think that there are only "Skeptics of the science, and proponents". You've already passed judgement... Good to see that you're objectivity doesn't get in the way of a pre-determined reality.
I'd never heard of this guy before this article... If by referring to him as the former chief policy guy on the skeptic side makes you sleep better, then fill yer boots bud.
.. And those same governments don't buy into the scientific hogwash that the IPCC has trotted-out.
How many of these governments have adopted and enacted the IPCC policy - that ought to give you an idea as to what the member gvts think of the IPCC.
Natural history.
Makes sense then that you wouldn't be bothered by the inconsistency. You're like a seal that clapps it's flippers for some herring. As long as you see IPCC bashing, you're a happy little trained seal...
Pathetic troll.
Knock it off, you can't be that stupid. I said there are only two voices the media portray...why would you ignore that and only quote the above? I know very well that it is not so dichotomous.
Your tactics are exactly those of the IPCC opponents during that nonsense climategate. You're attribute something to me, without taking into account the context that precedes.
You are a good trained seal...
Nothing I say on here affects my sleeping either way. Sorry, you're just not that important. And we're not buds...What I am saying which you didn't care to respond to, is that the most often cited skeptical policy expert is now firmly in the carbon tax camp. If you haven't heard of him, then I'm not really surprised at your shallow understanding of this entire topic....even amateurs like myself and mentalfloss and avro and anna and extrafire and walter have heard of this guy.
You should maybe stay in the shallow end of the pool...
:lol: See, you really don't know what you're talking about. Every single nation that is a part of the IPCC had to approve the language in the IPCC reports. All member states must accept the report. That is why the report is so conservative. Everyone must agree, so the leading edge of the science doesn't get portrayed very well. A prominent example of this is sea level rise.
What is the IPCC policy anyways? I don't know what the IPCC policy is, but I would be t the answer is close to zero. Why should anyone be surprised that politicians talk out both sides of their mouth?
No, I'm serious. Name any review product that is out there which you would replace the place the IPCC holds. Let's see if it holds up to even half of the transparency in the IPCC process.
- Status