AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

Yes, but so have you. That is why there is debate - there is no middle ground on the subject with any of you guys.

I for one have said point blank to everyone in here who has asked me, that it has been some of both man and nature, and always will be. The natural forcings were very prominent early in the 20th century, but simply haven't been as important for the past 60 years.

It shouldn't be difficult for anyone to understand...there are many factors that affect the climate, and the sum magnitude is what determines the trajectory of our climate. The largest trending forcing right now, is man-made pollution which is enhancing the greenhouse effect. We have satellite measurements to back that up, as well as ground based measurements. We have spectroscopic measurements that unequivocally point to industrial combustion as the source of the growing atmospheric concentration of many greenhouse gases, and in some cases man made sources are the only source of the greenhouse gases.

It's really that simple. This year has been one of the hottest years we've recorded, and may end up the hottest year when all is tallied. Yet it has come in a year when the solar forcing is at a century low.

 

[Avro]

So true Tonn.

When I was a skeptic and was fortunately exposed to some real scientists they never claimed that man was the only source of warming, but we are certainly an accelerant and our activity will take it beyond natural effects.

We will also keep it there unless action is taken.

Question is, what happens when the sun increases it's output, permafrost softens releasing more carbon and sea ice reflects less energy.

My kids will see a different world for sure.

 

[Tonington]

My kids will see a different world for sure.

Definitely. We're leaving the cozycene for the anthopocene.

 

[captain morgan]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

You do know what an estimate is, right? It's an approximate calculation. If you want to compare the volcano to airplane emissions of carbon, you need to estimate the carbon emissions from airplanes as well as estimate the emissions from the volcano...

I've got a news flash for ya on this... You can measure the emissions from an airplane; you know the amount of fuel consumed, rate of consumption/combustion and can measure with great confidence, the efficiency of that system and therefore generate a solid value of the emissions... You have admitted that this cannot be done to the same degree of accuracy/confidence with a volcanic eruption, yet you have no compunction to deliver the message that science has determined that planes emit "X" and volcanoes emit "Y".

Nice... Really nice

So...you can't say that the estimate is incorrect. All measurements are essentially approximations. Is 1 kg measured on a scale really 1 kg? There is an inherent uncertainty in all measurements.

I see, so,one eco-kilogram is different from one non-eco-kilogram?

What I find especially interesting is the inherent uncertainty in the measurements, but no uncertainty in your position (despite it being based entirely on uncertain measurements, assumptions). Thank goodness that you and Suzuki just happen to know better, eh?

 

[Tonington]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

It was stolen from people in their own community that were so outraged by the fraud that they decided to do something about it.

How do you know that? Nobody has come forward...they will be prosecuted for criminal activity if they do. They don't even have the principle to admit that, even though- as you state -they feel their actions were inherently just.

Intellectually disingenuous.

There is no taking out of context when they flatly admit to fraudulent data, academic dishonesty and conspire to hinder the opposing view point.

Yes, there is a point. There are valid reasons to filter data. It's done all the time with medical studies. Otherwise, you might find a factor is important, that when properly accounted for is not.

But you need to have knowledge of the field, and science in general to understand the hows and whys...that would be called context.

 

[captain morgan]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

So, because you have ethical problems with what a few scientists said in private emails, you think that is evidence of fraud? There was no fraud...no matter how many investigations come to that conclusion, there will be folks like you, who are unrelenting in their denial.

 

[Tonington]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

I've got a news flash for ya on this... You can measure the emissions from an airplane; you know the amount of fuel consumed, rate of consumption/combustion and can measure with great confidence, the efficiency of that system and therefore generate a solid value of the emissions...

Yes...you can calculate, therefore it's an estimate. Does a plane engine with 1,000 flying hours perform the same as an engine with 1,000,000 hours?

You get an estimate when you calculate. Just as you do with a volcano.

I see, so,one eco-kilogram is different from one non-eco-kilogram?

No, you don't see. Just because your scale measures 1 kilogram, doesn't mean it is actually 1.00000000000000 kilogram. Scales need to be calibrated, all scientific instruments come with error estimates. Exact precision is impossible, as is accuracy, so there is an error, which is estimated by using reference weights with higher precision.

 

[captain morgan]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Yes...you can calculate, therefore it's an estimate. Does a plane engine with 1,000 flying hours perform the same as an engine with 1,000,000 hours? You get an estimate when you calculate. Just as you do with a volcano.

No, you don't see. Just because your scale measures 1 kilogram, doesn't mean it is actually 1.00000000000000 kilogram. Scales need to be calibrated, all scientific instruments come with error estimates. Exact precision is impossible, as is accuracy, so there is an error, which is estimated by using reference weights with higher precision.

So, in a nutshell, it is accurate to say that due to the massive anomalies that exist, there is no possible way that we can prove that global warming is going on, let alone that anthropogenic global warming exists.

Thanks buddy, it seems that we've solved the mystery and can finally put this debate to bed.

 

[Tonington]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

So, in a nutshell, it is accurate to say that due to the massive anomalies that exist, there is no possible way that we can prove that global warming is going on, let alone that anthropogenic global warming exists.

No, that would not be accurate. What would be accurate is to say that all measurements have errors, and ignoring that fact to say that an estimate is inherently flawed is wrong. We're not wrong because we can't pinpoint the mass of a rock to a million decimal places...but we would be wrong if we reported a measurement without estimates of the errors. In scientific papers you see errors all the time, but rarely does it make it into the public, because as you have just demonstrated, it confuses those who don't understand how science works.

 

[Skatchie]

I am disillusioned that anybody can look at this issue, pretending science is on their side, and say things like "facts" and "certainty". It laughs in the face of the scientific method you are supposed to be hiding behind. There are no facts on this issue. There are only hopes and dreams and rainbows. I just looked at data yesterday that said there is more sea ice now than in 1980. I know that there are twice as many polar bears in arctic Canada now than in the 60s. I also know that the vast majority of Discover channel garbage about melting ice and the like is filmed sensationally and most diagrams showing reduction use the trick of showing winter photos next to summer photos to espouse the point. I don't know what the cause of anything is or what's really going on but the way people are "certain" of "facts" is quite laughable.

I made the mistake of throwing garbage out there in this debate too, about carbon, and stupid crap like that, that I know nothing about. We're really arguing about things we can't possibly understand anyways. again, that's why it's more accurate to go with what you feel politically instead. It's inexact but at least it doesn't pretend not to be like this argument does.

 

[Avro]

I just looked at data yesterday that said there is more sea ice now than in 1980

Okay, I'll bite...show me this data.

I have some as well.

 

[Skatchie]

Okay, I'll bite...show me this data.

I have some as well.

I'm too lazy. the thing is though, it's not hard to find. If I found it, with seconds of searches on google it's out there. I'm not saying that I believe it but i don't discount it either. I really don't know and quite frankly, don't care. This a fraud. It's a fake issue. If it wasn't there would be open discussion and scientists would be free to conclude facts whether they support the agenda or not. I see your data. I can't say it's false or true. i only assume it's BS because the eco movement is so co-opted and corrupt.

 

[Avro]

I'm too lazy.

I know.

 

[petros]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

No, that would not be accurate. What would be accurate is to say that all measurements have errors, and ignoring that fact to say that an estimate is inherently flawed is wrong. We're not wrong because we can't pinpoint the mass of a rock to a million decimal places...but we would be wrong if we reported a measurement without estimates of the errors. In scientific papers you see errors all the time, but rarely does it make it into the public, because as you have just demonstrated, it confuses those who don't understand how science works.

Is the IPCC a scientific body or a political one?

 

[captain morgan]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Is the IPCC a scientific body or a political one?

Unfortunately Petros, there is no accurate way to measure this and due to the fact that the possibility that anomalies in measuring exactly "what" the IPCC is, well we can't conclusively determine if they actually exist.

 

[Avro]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Is the IPCC a scientific body or a political one?

The honest answer is both.

 

[captain morgan]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

The honest answer is both.

That answer doesn't really help your cause Avro.

 

[petros]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

The honest answer is both.

No it's not. It's political. So it's not science leading the way to a better world is it?

 

[mentalfloss]

No it's not. It's political. So it's not science leading the way to a better world is it?

from wiki..

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity.

Intergovernmental organizations differ in function, membership and membership criteria. They have various goals and scopes, often outlined in the treaty or charter. Some IGOs developed to fulfill a need for a neutral forum for debate or negotiation to resolve disputes. Others developed to carry out mutual interests in a unified form.

Common stated aims are to preserve peace through conflict resolution and better international relations, promote international cooperation on matters such as environmental protection, to promote human rights, to promote social development (education, health care), to render humanitarian aid, and to economic development.

Reasons for participation
1) Economic rewards: In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many different countries receive economic benefits from membership in the free trade agreement. For example, Mexican companies are given better access to U.S. markets due to their membership.

2) Political influence: Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, who do not carry much political clout on the international stage, are given a substantial increase in influence through membership in IGOs, such as the European Union. Also for countries with more influence such as France and Germany they are beneficial as the nation increases influence in the smaller countries' internal affairs and expanding other nations dependence on themselves, so to preserve allegiance

3) Security: Membership in an IGO such as NATO gives security benefits to member countries. This provides an arena where political differences can be resolved.

4) Improve democracy and the likelihood of democratic survival: It has been noted that member countries experience a greater degree of democracy and those democracies survive longer.

--

So if you get to throw out IPCC, then I can throw out NATO?

No, I didn't think so.

 

[petros]

from wiki..

Intergovernmental organizations differ in function, membership and membership criteria. They have various goals and scopes, often outlined in the treaty or charter. Some IGOs developed to fulfill a need for a neutral forum for debate or negotiation to resolve disputes. Others developed to carry out mutual interests in a unified form.

Common stated aims are to preserve peace through conflict resolution and better international relations, promote international cooperation on matters such as environmental protection, to promote human rights, to promote social development (education, health care), to render humanitarian aid, and to economic development.

Reasons for participation
1) Economic rewards: In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), many different countries receive economic benefits from membership in the free trade agreement. For example, Mexican companies are given better access to U.S. markets due to their membership.


2) Political influence: Smaller countries, such as Portugal and the Netherlands, who do not carry much political clout on the international stage, are given a substantial increase in influence through membership in IGOs, such as the European Union. Also for countries with more influence such as France and Germany they are beneficial as the nation increases influence in the smaller countries' internal affairs and expanding other nations dependence on themselves, so to preserve allegiance


3) Security: Membership in an IGO such as NATO gives security benefits to member countries. This provides an arena where political differences can be resolved.


4) Improve democracy and the likelihood of democratic survival: It has been noted that member countries experience a greater degree of democracy and those democracies survive longer.

--

Yup. Political. Thanks.