The Hutch: NASA: hottest April (and hottest Jan-Apr) since we started tracking. Will Fox News bother reporting this? http://bit.ly/d6zzy6
The Gibroney Hunter: So record snowfalls in winter mean nothing, yet a statistically hot month is supposed to prove something? I love it. Classic Hutch tail-chasing. The reality is that neither of these facts really mean anything, in terms of proving or denying "climate change" (something that has always and will always occur on our planet).
And really, if you're going to let Anne "the cunt" Coulter be the authority on ANY issue, then you're probably beyond any sort of help.
Temperatures have been declining since 2002. This fact directly contradicts official global warming theory, since according to the (demonstrably fraudulent) models temperatures should only be steadily increasing, since after all, our rate of consumption for fossil fuels is consistently increasing. A nearly decade-long decline in temps becomes problematic, if we're to believe that human-caused greenhouse gasses (which amount to only 3% of all greenhouse gasses) were the driving force behind temperature increases during the nineties.
Surely, you must find it curious that of all the many steps that could be taken to address environmental degradation, the only thing being hyped by the sellout media is this vague banner-waving over pseudoscientific claims, meant only to push through legislation for political purposes, not environmental. The establishment would much rather you waste your time with nonsense like "climate change" (or the artist formerly known as "global warming") than focus on real environmental issues, like cleaning up our air water and food. (which ironically has been tainted by the very same corporate interests now selling you global warming, with billions in funding)
I'll leave you with one more inconvenient truth: recently scientists discovered the fossilized remains of trees within certain glaciers, dating back to the mideival warming period. The same medieval warming period that global warming advocates claim didn't exist. This would seem to indicate that not only were temperatures significantly warmer then than they are now, but they were so much warmer as to actually turn what are now glaciers into forest. Maybe it was all the methane from their horses.. or maybe those co2 emitting wheelbarrows.
The IPCC = The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. A political body, not a scientific one.
The Hutch: Statistically hot _year_. Read the friggin' article. We're talking about climate, here. Not weather. Weather is localized. Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns. One of the hallmarks of greenhouse gas heat entrapment is that all sorts of things go out of wack as weather patterns change. So while the ... See Moreoverall amount of heat being trapped in our atmosphere increased overall, the pressure systems that control the flow of hot and cool air over the surface of the earth caused desertification in some parts of the world, and massive snowstorms in others. The end results? CLIMATE CHANGE. On a long enough time line? The globe warms. One might be so inclined as to call it "global warming."
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Global Warming. The non-debate.
Pathetic. I expected more from RT than to simply parrot the American MSM's assertion that Climate Change scientists can only make snafus, not commit fraud.
They're approaching the "Himalayas" story as if it occurred in a vacuum. As if leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia haven't also revealed Climate Change scientists' deliberate attempts to hide temperature declines, as if there isn't a slew of other evidence indicated wrongdoing, that should be considered along with this latest issue.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch: Global Warming
The Hutch: I was arguing about this with my conservative christian friend. One group of scientists doing bad science does not damn the science itself. There are still mountains - MOUNTAINS! - of good science being done all over the world. Look at the stuff coming out of India, China, and Antarctica, for example.
Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.
No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.
There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.
I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.
The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.
You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.
When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.
While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.
It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.
I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.
Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.
I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.
There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.
Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.
The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.
However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.
As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).
But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.
But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.
Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!
The Gibroney Hunter:
Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.
No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.
There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.
I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.
The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.
You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.
When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.
While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.
It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.
I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.
Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.
I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.
There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.
Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.
The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.
However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.
As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).
But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.
But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.
Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!
The Gibroney Hunter:
Yeah I focus on the improprieties within the bureaucratic/political/funding side of the science, since my knowledge of climatology doesn't go much past the basics.
But don't underestimate the significance of this corruption, evidenced by the immoral and in my opinion criminal activity, exposed in these emails. (i sent you the source code, check it out.) These emails reveal an attempt to unfairly manage and manipulate the facts and the overall debate over global warming. This doesn't seem to fit well with the image of rock-solid science, pushed in our faces by the global warming marketing machine.
The success of the theory of evolution didn't require people sitting around trying to fudge the numbers like sleazy accountants.
I'm definitely highly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is a standpoint not only supported by volumes of evidence, but by the already destroyed reputation of the Establishment, and the elite globalists who own and operate it. In other words, they've committed so many frauds and crimes against the populations they dominate, that I find it entirely rational to maintain the standpoint of deep skepticism and, dare I say, a sober amount of paranoia, toward their agenda.
Anyway, yeah.. have a good thanksgiving.
But don't underestimate the significance of this corruption, evidenced by the immoral and in my opinion criminal activity, exposed in these emails. (i sent you the source code, check it out.) These emails reveal an attempt to unfairly manage and manipulate the facts and the overall debate over global warming. This doesn't seem to fit well with the image of rock-solid science, pushed in our faces by the global warming marketing machine.
The success of the theory of evolution didn't require people sitting around trying to fudge the numbers like sleazy accountants.
I'm definitely highly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is a standpoint not only supported by volumes of evidence, but by the already destroyed reputation of the Establishment, and the elite globalists who own and operate it. In other words, they've committed so many frauds and crimes against the populations they dominate, that I find it entirely rational to maintain the standpoint of deep skepticism and, dare I say, a sober amount of paranoia, toward their agenda.
Anyway, yeah.. have a good thanksgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Oh, and that glacier forest thing? Yeah, I read alla bout that. The scientists who discovered them point them as evidence of artificial global warming! But you've already made up your mind, Lou. Global Warming is just another way the government is out to get us all. The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need. And like Darren alluded to, any facts that dispute what you believe aren't to be trusted. So it goes.
http://www.sciencedaily.co
The Gibroney Hunter: That's not the "discovery of tree remains" that I'm referring to.
http://www.co2science.org/
Guess you haven't read all about it...
As I said, these recent findings are dated back to the MEDIEVAL warming period (roughly 1000-1300 a.d) not 7,000+ years ago, and strongly indicate that overall temperatures in the area were warmer than in the second half of the twentieth century.
Jan-April is a year?
"The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need."
Actually, this was the last point that was made, after listing multiple facts supporting my opinion. The fact that you're so closed-minded as to make such an obnoxiously false statement like, is further indication that you're more content to feel like you're right, than to actually do the homework necessary to have any sort of real confidence in your opinions. Also, it's not the fact that the IPCC is a governmental body that causes me the most concern. It's more from facts like, i dunno.. shucks.. like, for example, that they've been exposed as intentionally HIDING the declines in temps since 2002 in their statistical models. How you can rationalize this as anything other than criminally fraudulent behavior, I have no idea. Must require some real mental acrobatics.
And that really cuts the heart of it, doesn't it? No matter what evidence is presented to you, your response is to ignore it, and, like some sort of computer program with a gliche, simply repeat the mantra "you've presented no evidence."
You are aware that there's this other course of action you could take, called responding.. to counterarguments, correct?
"Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns."
How long? How long do our records of climate go back? I'll give you a hint: nowhere near far enough to confidently state that this year is the hottest ever. You can say "hottest on record" and call it a day, as you McLiberals are fond of doing, but what you should really be saying is "hottest, based on our woefully brief and inadequate record"