Ipcc Says Global Warming

i posted alot of scientific evidence on why CO2 follows warming and why it makes perfect sense in the global warming theory. you keep on posting this idea that CO2 follows warming therefore CO2 is not causing the warming. this argument is wrong and can be explained by the global carbon cycle and it fits into the global warming theory perfectly.


this "snowball effect" or a feedback loop, as scientist describe it can be and has been shown to drive global temperatures.

 

Do you deny that NASA and NOAA and the IPCC have been caught misrepresenting data? "Hiding the decline", multiple times?



Easterbrook also finds these organizations "adjusting the data". Old hard copies show dramatically different trends than those published by NASA / NOAA. https://www.youtube....b3FRvE#t=13m31s

Three words: hide the decline. I don't care if Richard Muller was made an offer he couldn't refuse after the fact, he wasn't lying when he made this presentation and he hasn't retracted it. https://www.youtube....ciw8suk#t=3m13s

We need to go back and define terms to make sure we're not arguing at cross-purposes. We can all agree that good, truth seeking science is almost always trustworthy and valid. Let's get to the root of this and see if we can agree on how honest and forthright these orginizations are.

 

there are other organizations outside of the US whos proxy studies come to the same conclusion.

there might be a conspiracy that these organizations are manipulating data, i cant deny that, but overall all scientific studies across the globe come to the conclusion that there is a warming trend.

this is like the second or third time you keep on repeating this argument which has already been addressed. 15 years is not statistically significant to document any kind of trend.


as far as what to do with china and india, its common sense.

common sense #1: putting any chemical that builds up in our atmosphere is bad.

common sense #2: CO2 builds up in our atmosphere. regardless of weather you believe that CO2 is a driver of global warming, any kind of chemical imbalance on earth is bad.

common sense#3: we should therefore try to influence other countries to not cause any chemical imbalance. (this is where politics comes in, but thats another debate)

 

i actually dont know anything about those organizations hiding stuff, ill admit that.

but this can be easily addressed.

Nasa, NOA, and IPCC claim that global warming is occuring. if you dont trust them and you have some evidence that they are lying, well then fine, its perfectly reasonable to not believe them.


but when all countries around the globe are doing similar studies with no ties to nasa, noaa and the ipcc and they reach the same conclusion, that the climate is indeed warming, then i would trust the over-all scientific consensus.

lets also remember science basics: a theory can have many parts, some of those parts can be wrong while the over-all theory can still be true.

Darwin, for example made some theories that turned out to be wrong, but we dont throw out all of evolutionary theory just because of that. you have to apply that same reasoning here too.

 

LIndzen is an expert in lining his own pockets with money from coal and oil-- he's been doing it since the 90s.

http://dieoff.org/page82.htm

He has been predicting cooling since that time and has been absurdly, profoundly, ridiculously wrong for the entire time.
He is now under investigation alongside Willie Soon, who openly brags about how his studies are funded by oil companies, calls them 'deliverables', and who deliberately undermined one of the IPCC reports.

http://www.energyandpolicy.org/willie-soon-secret-fossil-fuel-funding-revealed-for-papers-denying-man-made-climate-change

Roy Spencer is another notorious paid denier who also thinks evolution is a crock.

Here he is denying evolution:

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

He is on the board of directors at the right wing think tank the George C Marshall Institute:

http://marshall.org/board-members/

He is not a valid source of anything except outright political bias and oil company-funded lies.
You do know the Republican party receives over $10 million in campaign donations, right?
WHY would someone who is so unapologetically political be a trustworthy source of information?

Stop posting this BS as if it proves anything. Spencer isn't stupid enough to have made an honest mistake, he is deliberately lying.

Here are some real scientists debunking his lies:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

He doesn't write papers for other scientists, he writes them for public consumption and counts on people not knowing enough about the subject to figure out why he's wrong.

 

Fragile you completely avoided the question by making moral equivalence statements. I acknowledge that energy companies spend some amount of money to fund studies and travel expenses of scientists. Do you acknowledge the other side has been caught red handed manipulating data?

Easterbrook and Muller have first hand accounts of direct manipulation. Do you think they're lying?

Do you deny that NASA and NOAA and the IPCC have been caught misrepresenting data? "Hiding the decline", multiple times?



Easterbrook finds these organizations "adjusting the data". Old hard copies show dramatically different trends than those published by NASA / NOAA. https://www.youtube....b3FRvE#t=13m31s

Three words: hide the decline. I don't care if Richard Muller was made an offer he couldn't refuse after the fact, he wasn't lying when he made this presentation and he hasn't retracted it. https://www.youtube....ciw8suk#t=3m13s

We need to go back and define terms to make sure we're not arguing at cross-purposes. We can all agree that good, truth seeking science is almost always trustworthy and valid. Let's get to the root of this and see if we can agree on how honest and forthright these orginizations are.

 

truths to anythings are always very pure and can stand on their own.....
so getting to the truth to anything is always a good thing to do...

However manipulations and agendas keep clouding truths...so I always hope for people's including my own senses to know what the truths are about anything really.

 

Richard Lindsen is a mathematician, not a climatologist. He charges Oil Companies $2,500 an hour for consultations. If profit we're a motivating factor in deciding who to trust, then his work should be questioned as well, correct?

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

I brought up that silly movie as a counterpoint, because it's a distraction. You keep repeating that CO2 follows warming, and you allude to two dramatic hundred million year old extinction events as your evidence. I pointed out fact that while global warming can release more CO2 that is sequestered in ice, to say that it follows warming is inaccurate and disingenuous.

Here's some research published last week that directly confirms radioactive forcing in areas measuring CO2 concentrations in local atmosphere sand observing infrared radiation retention in those areas. More Empirical evidence.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-co2s-increasing-greenhouse-effect-02541.html

The largest emitters of CO2 are in order: China, The US, and India. China has a little more than double our CO2 emissions, and a little under 8 times the population.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2014-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2014-report-93171.pdf

What should be done about it is fairly obvious. Investment in mass transportation and infrastructure, and research into alternative fuels. Carbon fuels are the cheapest right now for obvious reasons. Because they've had 150 years of research, investment, and government nursing to make them the cheapest. In other words, hydrocarbons are artificially cheap.
It's drastically more expensive to load trucks up with water, drive them across the state *with gas* have them pump that water into the earth, and then suck out and refine the shale. More expensive without government coddling, which you seem to be indignant about when it involves legitimate scientific research.

My proposition is we use some of that funding instead to go to alternatives which exist now that aren't deleterious to the environment. Nobody's building ethanol hybrid vehicles without gas stations. And nobody's building gas stations without vehicles.

Your plan seems to involve doing nothing and blaming secret bankers for bribing 99.5% of the scientific community.

Nerdanderthal; respectfully... you're tragically wrong on this issue.

 

False equivalence.

Some people fake research on just about any subject - the fact remains that the entire credible scientific community accepts global warming as fact.

All three people on your side being caught for open-and-shut fraud is not the same thing as three people on the side with the evidence who wanted some attention and to get an article published. Fraud should be rooted out wherever it's found - and it's found overwhelmingly in global warming deniers.

 

(double post because my edit time ran out)

As far as my presence, I decided I'm up for fighting for sport - after all, he knows he's wrong, and the joy of trolling is considerably less than the joy of hitting someone's flimsy argument with logic like a load of bricks. They can pretend you didn't, but look at their argument, it's back there, under those bricks...

If you can combine trolling and being in the right, that's bliss; a state on par with psychedelic enlightenment.

Nerd's clearly not there yet.

 

Am I the only one who reads the thread title as "ICP says Global Warming" some times?

 

yeah, but the Juggalos water their lawns with Fanta, not Gatorade.

 

Fucking climate change, how does it work?

 

"It's our fault, let's try to fix it before everybody dies" vs "It's not our fault, let's do nothing and hopefully not everybody will die"

*rearranges deck chairs*

 

Before everyone dies. Would you be so kind as to justify that in any way?

In before IPCC says so. Do they give you any solid data? Are you leaning on Day After Tomorrow?

 

Nobody can justify everyone dying.

I think we're all at least twenty years too late. We were twenty years too late before Dubya pedalled backwards and made it a lot more.

IPCC is always years out of date. Hollywood can bugger off, I'm leaning on a lamp post