Global warming hoax!?! - UPDATED -

Scientists no longer in it for the science...

By on December 3, 2009 9:00:13 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums External Link

SivCorp

Join Date 02/2009
+42

So, the truth has finially come out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

 

Man created global warming has been politicized to the point that scientists have been rigging the results of tests to get the desired result.  This is not science, and all those "scientists" should lose their grants, teaching licenses, and be barred from ever touching a beaker

 

Seriously, has science died?  What has the world come to that the nations of the world were getting close to passing greatly limiting, taxing and controling treaties all based on false information?  What should be done with the whole "green" agenda that has now been proven to be based on lies?

 

Thoughts?

--- Over 1000 replies makes this a very hot topic ---

 

Therefore I will continue to update with the unraveling of the IPCC and politicized science. (new articles will be placed first)

Please keep the topics a little more on point from here on out, thanks.

 - Glacer calculation show to be false, and scientist refuses to apologize...

 - More errors in report?

 - Opinion paper - Rigging climate 'consensus'

 

Locked Post 1250 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 5:45:15 AM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Another thing that should be mentioned is that a person of a scientific mindset would use the scientific method for anything.

This entire topic is a theory.  A theory on rather or not global warming is happening.  This theory should be questioned with the scientific method just like any theories.

 

1.  Consider the problem and try to make sense of it using your experience.

2.  State an explanation if no explanation is known.

3.  Make a prediction out of your explanation.

4.  Test.

 

Here is the thing:  You have evidence against this theory of global warming, and evidence for.  How do any of you know which is the truth without having the facts yourself?

It could be true or could not be, but the people who cannot bother to question this theory, are not following the scientific method and should not be arguing about science.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 6:12:13 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

"I haven't looked at the raw data, and even though everyone on the other side already admitted to adjusting it a long time ago, I'll assume these people are lying without checking for myself."
I have already admitted that I would have no real idea what to do with the raw data. I am not a climatologist, I am an electrical engineer. I have a job that requires pretty much all of my attention. I have no desire to do the equivalent amount of study required to know everything there is to know about climatology that would be required to do such a study with even the minimal amount of competency.

However as an Electrical Engineer I have designed mainframe computers, workstations, PC's; medical ultrasound, CT and MRI systems; visible and infrared satellite CCD camera systems; ATM network processors, hardware based TCP/IP termination equipment, and convolved encrypted satellite communication equipment.

It’s called specialization, I expect that if a climatologist wanted a new computer they would not go to the effort of designing one themselves they would buy one that had been designed by someone like me. In a similar vein I do not belittle their expertise by assuming that simply using their data combined with a minimal amount of native intelligence will result in some dramatic new discovery that not only disagrees with the true experts in the field but also has any basis to be believed by any neutral observer.

I also have no problem with discounting the work (if you insist on calling it that) that some uneducated person with no documentable or credible education or experience in the field puts out, particularly when that work has no supporting evidence other than “go ahead and repeat this yourself and see what you get.” And further when anyone with a credible education and experience in the field that bothers to address the “work” simply rips it to shreds.

Yep I have no problem assuming these people are lying. I have no problem assuming this of anyone that makes claims without making the slightest effort to prove them or give me one single reason as to what education and or experience they have that qualifies them to make these bald faced assertions when what they say runs counter to the entire accredited scientific community.

By the way what is *your* education and what is it that *you* do for a living that makes your words worth the paper they’re not printed on?

We were all going to die in the 70's, the ice age was coming.
I’ve already demonstrated that is a total fallacy. There was no noticeable scientific support of that theory so your analogy makes no sense.

these doom and gloom postulations
This is another thing entirely. Just because I buy the premise that the earth is warming and that human activity is a noticeable contributor to it does not mean that I automatically accept the worst case scenario as inevitable. There are a wide range of predictions. If you believe most of these are unreasonable and that if anything is actually going to happen it will be on the low side of anyone’s predictions then I cannot really argue with you. You may or may not be right but at least you are in the range of the reasonable. But then I’ve said this before and you simply choose to be duplicitous and ignore it.

The only thing you've said so far that has even the slightest shred of interest in it is the thing about the painting of the temperature monitoring stations.

Of course you've made no effort to document any of this but it at least does make a minimal amount of sense. However per usual you will do no real work and require that your opponent go to all the effort of documenting a rebuttal. This is why I have blacklisted you because talking with you is so much work. You just spout off some crap off the top of your head and then require someone else to put in all the effort involved.

I mentioned before that I will in fact check into it and that I do have every expectation that I will be able to find information that this effect has already been accounted for in the data. *These* are the kinds of reasons why data needs to be adjusted and if in fact your assertion about the paint is true in the first place I'm confident that I can point you to documentation of how that has been addressed.

But that's it. After that I simply will not address or respond to you unless you start to put in realistic effort into documenting your arguments. The more dramatic the claim the more dramtic the proof required and I've yet to ever see you provide any proof whatsoever.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 6:18:12 AM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

lol. If there is presented overwhelming evidence to you backed with overwhelming scientific support, would you not accept it? One little -religious- scientist with a certificate of some backwater college schooled in geology working for some institute funded by exxon mobile who comes up with (faulty) evidence against global warming does not mean global warming is not true. They're scientists who don't believe in heisenbergs uncertainty principle or einsteins relativity theory, who present "evidence" against these theories. But would you then not accept these theories?  I'm not saying you shouldn't question theories, but if an overwhelming amount of SCIENTISTS say it's a valid theory it's valid. If you want to convince me you should have a credential in this field. All these people don't have any credentials in the field. 

 

And no breakthru's werent made by genius scientists who went against the mainstream dogma. This is a common mistake people make. Sometimes a scientist has a radical new idea, but it certainly isn't so that science is made by an elite club of super geniuses who din't accept mainstream "dogma".

 

 

 

P.S. A theory in science is the highest one can achieve, you can't have a "trueer" thing.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 6:20:06 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Sorry to make you do all the work Mumble... I do like to find out what data people are looking at, and this seems to be the only way.

Thanks for it.
I don't mind doing the work if the result is that some actually looks at the work and can at least credit the argument even if they may still deny the conclusion.

The usual result is that since the argument counters the inital claim it's simply ignored and by not automatically doing so that makes you a very rare person on the internet.

Thank you for that.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 6:33:03 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

If someone want to be regarded as a real scientist, the above is a required cost of doing business. Not doing so, for ANY reason, is the equivalent of hanging a big "Not Legitimate" sign on the research, and anything based on it. This is not optional. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously when they question such research must do the same.
I suppose that you're right but at the minimum you can at least see the motivation. To give your data to total nimrods that do nothing other than waste your time debunking their crap is frustrating to say the least.

But OK I agree with this.

To regain even the semblance of legitimacy, CRU must release the original data they collected or compiled from other sources.
They have. It's here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ and here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl?page=ghcn.html.

See also here, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-4/. Note that as a blog whose members are in fact many of the actual scientists involved you can find *lots* of useful information in the comments as well as in the articles if you bother to put in the effort to read them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 9:29:57 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

They're scientists who don't believe in heisenbergs uncertainty principle or einsteins relativity theory

Actually, the majority of scientists already do not believe in Einstein's relativity theory; 95% of it has been debunked.  A fact well-known among high-energy physicists.  Not the general population.  Not that he isn't highly revered among the scientific community--his contribution is huge.  The whole scientific method thing:   hypothesis, experiment, conclusion.   He provided the hypotheses.  They've motivated decades of experimentation; it's just the conclusions are now very different from the original theory. 

All that to show just how much scientists are not on the same page with the general population at all.  There's a lot of scorn for the intelligentsia out there.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 10:23:27 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Actually, the majority of scientists already do not believe in Einstein's relativity theory; 95% of it has been debunked.
Please provide some sort of *factual* data to backup this totally outlandish claim.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 10:56:45 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Climate change is not a hoax.  There has been a warming trend since the 1970's which has over the past decade flattened.

'Anthropogenic global warming' is a hypothesis which attempts to explain why it might be getting warmer faster than it might otherwise be occurring absent man's influence.

Just a few of the problems with that:

  • We don't really know how fast the earth might otherwise be warming.
  • We don't know the chicken/egg relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
  • It's not possible to conduct a controlled experiment on the subject.
  • Predicting future temperatures, even if all the baseline data were rock solid, is statistical alchemy.
  • The data being used by the climatologists appear to be anything but 'rock solid.'
  • We appear to have insufficient knowledge of the full range of data variables and how they influence each other in the stew we call the 'global climate.'
  • Statistical alchemy, as currently practiced by climatologists, is insufficiently powerful to confirm the theory and failed to predict the climate trend of the past decade.

Cap and trade, in all its variations and appelations, is a hoaxThe politicians in the Copenhagen process are attempting to perpetrate a hoax.  While we can bank on physics when solving the problem of conveying vehicle traffic over a moving river, climatology is too soft a science upon which to base the onerous policies being considered that would cause immediate, tangible harm in the 'hope' that such self-flagellation is 'necessary.'

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 10:57:23 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Show me how to post mathematical equations on this forum, and you've got a deal.   Otherwise, how about you posting some factual data yourself to backup that it's outlandish.   Four fingers pointing right back atcha.  I worked at a particle collider for a living; that's all you need to know.

I will say this much, though:   just take the very basic equation, E=mc^2.   Experimental data shows that energy goes to infinity as you asymptotically approach the speed of light.  If E=1/2 mv^2 (an admittedly Newtonian equation) and E=mc^2, you figure it out:   there is no way energy will go to infinity when v->c.   Sorry, E does NOT = mc^2.  It equals mc^2 plus a bunch of other things.   But this is not a thread on high-energy particle physics; it's on global warming.   Suffice it to say, scientists and the general population are on COMPLETELY different pages of thought.   And the public is wrong for thinking scientists are not grounded in reality--they just have a significantly better idea of what reality is.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 11:56:02 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

 

70% of the monitoring stations in the US are several degrees higher than the actual temperature because of localized heat sources, improper maintenance, and a change in design. You're going to be showing a rapid increase in temperature over the last few decades as they've been urbanized and neglected.
Stevenson screens were changed over to latex paint(roughly two degree increase in temperature readings over white wash) in the late 70's.
I'm sure you're familar with Anthony Watts and his website Watts Up With That. If not then it's pretty coincidental that he specifically addresses both of these concerns on his website.

First make sure to click on the link on his name to verify that Mr. Watts sole claim to expertise in the field is that he has been a TV weatherman. Also contrary to some claims he is not "AMS Certified" (i.e. American Meteorological Society) nor is it even clear whether or not he even graduated from college.

But as to how his claims mirror yours refer to the Projects page on his website which describes his www.surfacestations.org project and his Stevenson Screen Paint Experiment.

The surface station project "is designed for the express purpose of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA. USHCN is a subset of the larger COOP network of stations in the USA, of which there are about 9000. The USHCN subset has been hand picked by the National Climatic Data Center to be more regionally representative due to their placement, length of service and minimum station moves. Unfortunately, the network has fallen into neglect, and the temperature data produced by it is suspect due to microsite biases.

Does this sound at all familar?

Anyway here is a video response to these claims.

 

This does not yet address your paint issue directly. More on that later.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 12:11:21 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Otherwise, how about you posting some factual data yourself to backup that it's outlandish.
Every single thing I post is backed up with a link to my source of information. You do not need to post equations. You need to post links to credible scientists that support your claim.

But this is not a thread on high-energy particle physics; it's on global warming.
You brought it up not me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 12:52:24 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting lifekatana,
lol. If there is presented overwhelming evidence to you backed with overwhelming scientific support, would you not accept it? One little -religious- scientist with a certificate of some backwater college schooled in geology working for some institute funded by exxon mobile who comes up with (faulty) evidence against global warming does not mean global warming is not true. They're scientists who don't believe in heisenbergs uncertainty principle or einsteins relativity theory, who present "evidence" against these theories. But would you then not accept these theories?  I'm not saying you shouldn't question theories, but if an overwhelming amount of SCIENTISTS say it's a valid theory it's valid. If you want to convince me you should have a credential in this field. All these people don't have any credentials in the field. 

 

And no breakthru's werent made by genius scientists who went against the mainstream dogma. This is a common mistake people make. Sometimes a scientist has a radical new idea, but it certainly isn't so that science is made by an elite club of super geniuses who din't accept mainstream "dogma".

 

 

 

P.S. A theory in science is the highest one can achieve, you can't have a "trueer" thing.

Um yes, the major breakthrus we made by people going against what was the currently accepted science consensus of the time.  If they didn't, nothing would change.

What is going on with climate change science is not science.  Science should be accepting of other theories.  Instead, you have science by career politicians like Al Gore, who tells you that we are polluting the planet (While promoting lights that emit mercury instead of clean led lights, which give greater pollution then even incandescent), who says we should use less energy (while using 30% more then most homes), and who says the earth is heating up and rising waterfronts will destroy coastal regions (While he buys up lots of coastal regions).

 

I seriously question the intelligence of sheep who buy into ideals that refuse to listen to others, and even the main guys behind them don't believe them.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 1:03:26 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Just a few of the problems with that:
I'll take the liberty of rearranging your order for convenience sake.

* We don't really know how fast the earth might otherwise be warming.

Agreed. This is a perfectly legitimate argument to make. There is no claim to consensus on precisely how fast the earth is warming. There is a wide variation of predictions in this regard. If you think actuality will be on the low side I don't believe there's anyone that can legitimately say you're wrong. Many people may disagree with you but no one could prove you're wrong.

* It's not possible to conduct a controlled experiment on the subject.

Agreed again as it's totally obvious.

* Predicting future temperatures, even if all the baseline data were rock solid, is statistical alchemy.

Basically agreed. That's why there are ranges in predictions that vary dependent on the model. However that doesn't mean that we have no information whatsoever, it simply means that generally we can place a lower and upper bounds on where we expect it to turn out. You can't take consensus predictions that all agree that the temperature will rise somewhere from 1C to 7C by the end of the century and make the claim that we could end up in an ice age instead. But certainly within such bounds it's a crapshoot.

* The data being used by the climatologists appear to be anything but 'rock solid.'

Disagreed. There is very little data that is really in question. See the following links.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-4/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl?page=ghcn.html

* Statistical alchemy, as currently practiced by climatologists, is insufficiently powerful to confirm the theory and failed to predict the climate trend of the past decade.

You mean the decade of 2000-2009 which has been the warmest decade on record?
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/

* We appear to have insufficient knowledge of the full range of data variables and how they influence each other in the stew we call the 'global climate.'

* We don't know the chicken/egg relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

The last two claims are highly arguable. You should at the very least make some effort to back up these claims with some credible evidence. These are so wide as to simply say we know nothing about how the climate works at all.

I suggest the following set of videos to at least set the framework for a reasonable discussion. The first one is quick and easy and only takes 7 minutes of your time. The rest go into more detail and could be skipped if time is an issue but certainly I recommend the last couple in particular.

Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Qlc3s8XL4

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

2. Climate Change -- the objections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI

3. Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

4. Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU

6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Cap and trade, in all its variations and appelations, is a hoax. The politicians in the Copenhagen process are attempting to perpetrate a hoax.
I wouldn't call it a hoax per se, but I do agree that Cap and Trade is not necessarily the best way to go about the problem either. Part of this is that my understanding of Cap and Trade is not very great.

I had in fact mentioned this in the other thread. I did a quick reading of the proposal and although I found it perhaps unnecesarily complex on the face of it I didn't see what the big fuss was all about. At that time I asked for an explanation of what was so onerous about it but have yet to receive any response whatsoever.

As far as Copenhagen I know even less about that, although one thing is for certain I do not support payments from developed countries to developing countries to offset the fact that we've been allowed to pollute and we should therefore pay them to not pollute. Instead I support that they should be required to stick to the same limits that we stick to on simply the basis of providing a level playing field for fair trade and that violation of such would deny them access to our markets. But that's just me.


Plus I'm not a big fan of compact fluorescents (CFL's). Certainly the mercury issue is a big one. But more importantly is that the usefulness is highly limited since you can't use them in enclosed globe fixtures. What's the use of a 5 year light bulb if not to put into your most inaccessible fixtures so they don't need frequent replacement? These fixtures are almost always of an enclosed globe design. Boy was I pissed when I had to climb up a ladder to replace a bulb that I had replaced only three weeks ago.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 1:53:56 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting lifekatana,
lobackwater college schooled

That was uncalled for, if a college is acreditted it deserves as much respect as those stuck up rich people colleges.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 2:10:22 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

To anyone who fails to see why the email revelations are a big deal, read this, especially the second page. And before Mumble goes balistic, I'm aware of the issues with using The Weekly Standard as a source. FYI Mumble, realclimate.org cannot be considered a legitimate source for any of this - it's about as apolitical as an Enron-funded foundation, and it's implicated by name in the emails as a useful propaganda tool.

The evidence in the emails consistently points to the fact that the "scientific consensus" is not nearly as solid as we are led to believe. And more to the point, the interconnectedness of the field due to collaborations, work relations, past associations, etc means that even nominally independant organizations like NOAA are implicated in this mess. The organization itself may not be, but the individual scientists working there are.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 2:53:29 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

To anyone who fails to see why the email revelations are a big deal, read this,
A whole lot of opinion, not much substance.

Where's the beef?

Plus I never implied that realclimate.org was unbiased I merely stated that it was a place where you can get the information from the horse's mouth, which in this case are the mouths of the specific scientists involved. Clearly if your claim is that those very scientists are biased then you will not be accepting of that source but I never made any attempt to hide the relationship, in point of fact I was the one that first pointed it out.

The issue is that if the most controversial of my sources comes straight from the mouths of climate scientists and that is accompanied by links to credible national and international, governmental and educational scientific organizations then how does that compare to the other side whose sole source are right wing blogs containing no climate scientists whatsoever and ExxonMobil funded "think tanks." You have not *one* credible source on your side, my only blemish are certified climate scientists that happen to be involved with the current "controversy."

In any case time will tell which of us is correct.

Per usual we both know that we're not trying to convince each other, we're merely making a case for the side we believe in so that the other side does not appear to be unchallenged. I have no issue with that. What's a good debate without the "honorable opposition"?

I fear however that your greatest enemy is not me but the nimrods that actually agree with you but make stupid, unfounded and immediately disprovable claims.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 3:07:52 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

You can argue as much as you like about global warming. But fact is that fossil fuels are finite and any solution to our dependence of coal and coil ect... will also solve any problems by CO2 at the same time. And if we dont switch to any renewable energy source any time soon the crisis of credit will look like an aprils fool.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 4:02:42 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Here's a technical question that maybe Mumble can find an answer for, because I sure can't. Why is it that global temperatures follow almost exactly the solar radiance data, but only up to the 80s, where they wildly diverge? If carbon-based global warming were real, wouldn't the temperature data show a gradual skewing of temperature above what solar energy could explain, rather than the close-correlation-followed-by-Y-joint-in-the-graph that we actually see?

The issue is that if the most controversial of my sources comes straight from the mouths of climate scientists and that is accompanied by links to credible national and international, governmental and educational scientific organizations then how does that compare to the other side whose sole source are right wing blogs containing no climate scientists whatsoever and ExxonMobil funded "think tanks." You have not *one* credible source on your side, my only blemish are certified climate scientists that happen to be involved with the current "controversy."

The fallacy here is that you continue harping on your "credible sources", which by their own admission (via stolen email, but using their own words) have been working for the last 20 years to systematically strip credibility - fairly or unfairly - from anyone who even *looks* like they might not agree with the groupthink. In terms of funding: these people's funding depends absolutely on their being right. They have a fundamental vested interest in the outcome of the science at least as big as any petroleum company, even if the absolute magnitude of the funding is not equal.

I fear however that your greatest enemy is not me but the nimrods that actually agree with you but make stupid, unfounded and immediately disprovable claims.

True enough, and likewise. I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to someone IRL what exactly the ocean level effect of the arctic ice sheet melting would be. Or, to a somewhat lesser extent, the antactic ice shelves.

The truly astounding thing is that, although we hold basically opposing viewpoints on AGW itself, we pretty much agree on what should be done about it: pretty much nothing that wouldn't be done for other, better reasons anyway.

You can argue as much as you like about global warming. But fact is that fossil fuels are finite and any solution to our dependence of coal and coil ect... will also solve any problems by CO2 at the same time.

Yeah, AGW does have an inherent self-limiting factor that way. But apparently that limit is considered far enough out that we'd already have enough carbon in the air to make the feedback loop uncontrollable.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 4:20:45 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4297513.html

I've heard of this method of carbon sequestration. I even did it on the test tube scale in high school. Why is more research not being done to investigate this on a practical scale?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 4:33:57 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

The fallacy here is that you continue harping on your "credible sources", which by their own admission (via stolen email, but using their own words) have been working for the last 20 years to systematically strip credibility - fairly or unfairly - from anyone who even *looks* like they might not agree with the groupthink. In terms of funding: these people's funding depends absolutely on their being right. They have a fundamental vested interest in the outcome of the science at least as big as any petroleum company, even if the absolute magnitude of the funding is not equal.

Oh you have so no clue, it's really funny.

 

Oh well, actually I just wanted to post this link to a good video on youtube. Not that it will convince any believer, but I think it's done nicely and is even funny. (It's even on topic, since it talks about the conspiracy.)

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 5:03:16 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Here's a technical question that maybe Mumble can find an answer for, because I sure can't. Why is it that global temperatures follow almost exactly the solar radiance data, but only up to the 80s, where they wildly diverge?
Not precisely sure but take a look at the Climate Change series that I posted in reply #113.

They didn't specifically mention a break point in the 80's but they do go over how the two predominate drivers of temperature are the sun and CO2. Both have significant impact. If one is stable for a period of time while the other changes then the temperature obviously follows the changing variable. Obviously if both are changing at the same time then it's even more complicated.

The fallacy here is that you continue harping on your "credible sources",
This is an area where I don't believe anything can actually be proven. We've both established our positions and at this point continued discussion is merely repetition. I don't think either of our positions is logically untenable. I think we should agree to disagree and move on.

True enough, and likewise.
Except I seldom seem to get as much agreement as you do even when not specifically on JU. If the conversation is on JU then it gets downright ridiculous, but then even you would probably be considered liberal there. Think about that.

The truly astounding thing is that, although we hold basically opposing viewpoints on AGW itself, we pretty much agree on what should be done about it: pretty much nothing that wouldn't be done for other, better reasons anyway.
Not all that astounding to me. My personal preference would be that AGW would push us sooner rather than later to the most reasonable possible outcome which is abundant nuclear power in conjunction with a decent electric car. This solution not only solves AGW it also solves the impending peak oil problem while freeing us from middle east oil. It also would be a huge boon to the economy. One downside is the disposal issue, another downside is all those tempting terrorist targets. But who knows, without oil as a complicating factor perhaps we can extract ourselves from the middle east and thereby not provide cause for 1.4 billion muslims to hate us so, but that probably won't happen anytime soon. As far as technology we basically have almost everything we need today.

It's a win-win-win situation. I think we had this conversation before and the real problem is ExxonMobil, Texaco/Chevron and Saudi Arabia, et. al. Talk about healthcare reform being difficult from simply having to fight those vested interests. The oil vested interests will be ten times as difficult.

But that's why I try to separate the conversation into two parts. The pro-AGW versus anti-AGW becomes far less of an issue if the proposed solution that fixes AGW isn't believed to be so hugely onerous by the anti-AGW crowd.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 5:08:14 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Oh well, actually I just wanted to post this link to a good video on youtube
That is a great video.

In fact it's just the 6th one in the series that I posted in reply #113 along with the introduction. Excellent series that pretty much tries to keep itself above the fray of the politics and just concentrates on the science. Even anti-AGW folks should find it useful and may even learn a thing or two. I know I did.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 5:50:26 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

tetleytea.

STFU. 

 

I seriously doubt you work at a particle collider. Maybe as cleaner. 95% of Einstein theory is debunked?? Post sources please.This is simply not true. Also you show you complete lack of any understanding of physics by randomly quoting a formula and then interpreting it totally wrong.

If v=c, then yes energy is infinite. E=MC2 is the complete formula, not "a bunch of other things".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_special_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspeed#Upper_limit_on_speeds:

"According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ = 1/1 − v2/c2 is the Lorentz factor. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E=mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. The γ grows rapidly with v and approaches infinity as v approaches c. It would thus take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of massive objects."

 

 

Also you're fucking 26. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 5:53:53 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

What the hell is going on with this thread?

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
December 5, 2009 6:05:47 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

People like to think they are something, so they lie on the internet and pretend they're science geniusses. 

 

I always think it's suspicious if 1 in 10 posters claims to work in physics and then spout random nonsense about it. It's also funny if they claim they work in health care a week later when it a hot topic.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000563   Page Render Time: