Posted by Calcium on 2009-11-30 19:08:42

HUH?

So is there global warming? I invested in energy saving lightbulbs dammit!

Posted by Jeffro on 2009-11-30 19:22:04

As with anything, we would be wise to consider more than one source. And if one of the sources is Fox News, we'd be wise to consider maybe four or five more...

Posted by PainState on 2009-11-30 19:31:03

I agree Jeffro but that link goes to about 100+ sources. Did you even hit the link?

Posted by f_alk on 2009-11-30 20:20:23

The site is from CFACT, an organisation which received 382000$ since 1998 from ExxonMobil.
Members of their "scientific" council include a former member of the german coal mining association and the publisher of "International Coal Newsletter".

Well ... I don't care if they link to 1000 sites when I know who pays their bread and butter.

Posted by PeteW on 2009-11-30 20:21:45

Whoa. This is a little, well, over the top maybe?

I hold a PhD in Mathematical Medicine and I also worked for a time at the Meteological Centre in the UK, and I understand fully the concept fo scientific method. All theories have to be tested, argued against and thus supported to maintain their scientific bearing.

The problem here is that if anyone dares to question climate change they are branded an idiot and now more recently, if someone finds a shred of evidence to the contrary, suddenly climate change is a myth! This is a silly over-reaction. Note: we do not live in a soap-opera.

Even more sadly, some scientists DO obscure or falsify their results. I came across this all too frequently whilst I was researching. However, if these results or observations are not repeated, then the scientific community will ultimately reject the proposals.

Therefore, whilst some climatologists may have falsified their data to ensure continued funding, I cannot believe that the majority has, and so the evidence stands.

However, all scientific models are wrong, and over time, better models are created. Thus, we may discover that somehting else is at work and man are not to blame. But we cannot justifiably claim this yet. After all, Newton's theroies of gravity were great until Einstein came along.

So, please calm down ad don't get so over-excited about nothing. You remind me of the 14 year old girls that I teach.....

Posted by PainState on 2009-11-30 20:41:45

PeteW..come on man.

Every day it is becoming very clear that there is a cabal of scientist, around 70 and growing, who are all behind this. They dont allow peer review, they dont allow their "science" to be questioned and when it is they throw around PHD's until your head spins.

The majority of scientist dont accept the concesues approach to global warming but they have all been shut down.

Plus these scientist we are talking about are the ones in power! they run the show, they are the authorities on the subject and everything goes through these guys. If you disagree you are out.

In the end Pete this is not about science at all...this is about promoting the new "ism", Enviromentalism. And the ring leaders of this hoax are at the center of it and have the most to gain with the new regime rises up.

Any quesses on how many shares these guys own in all the enviromental companies that are starting up to "cash" in on the new technology they are jamming down our throats. Iam sure Al Gore and his friends have millions of shares in these companies all valued at around .05 cents each and when they go public the stock jumps to over $20 and keeps climbing...Masssive windfall.

it is all a scam and anybody who calls themselves a scientist can now choose.

1)Stand up and be counted and speak out about this hoax and clean out the scientific house of these con men.

OR

2) Keep repeating your PHD credentals and keep going forward like nothing has happened and hope it all blows away. Have fun in Copenhagen and usher in the new world order.


Pete you have a PhD...use your brains and look around. Its all a hoax and the evidence is mounting daily.

Heck your in the UK..the epicenter of this lunacy. And your good with it? what these policies mean to you and your family?

Posted by Hofmeister on 2009-11-30 21:29:00

Surely the point is that whether global warming is true or not, reducing our use of the limited resources of this planet is a good idea.

Posted by JoeMalik on 2009-11-30 21:34:07

Nice to see that you are able to prove all your statements. It would be silly to attack wrong and unproven statements with...wrong and unproven statements.

I dont get whats wrong in the USA..

Posted by James_Probert on 2009-11-30 21:36:36

I'm sorry painstate, you're clearly disillusioned by the claims made by some but there IS evidence from other sources, and when half the links on that site you give go to blogs, and the other half to one sided pieces it hardly gives a sense of reality to the concept, not to mention the fact that there are far more groups working with global warming data, than are affected by this. Their data stands up without adjustment.

Also, the formatting of the actual e-mail data cited as the leak, looks to me horribly inconsistant, increasing the chance that it is a hoax in my eyes

For these reasons, I will aim to continue to decrease my resource use, in the same manner that I have done over the past few years.

Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-11-30 21:42:30

Global warming is a MYTH. I have known this for years.
I am not going to argue with anyone about it.

I'm pretty sure Calcium was making a joke... regardless...
Just because Global warming isn't happening doesn't mean some of the products people invented to combat the myth.

I intend to buy a hybrid car of some type as my next vehicle.
I intend to place solar panels on my roof after my next roofing. Next spring I intend to install a rainwater basin system to use rain water to water my plants and operate my toilets. I bike to the grocery, bank and pharmacy. I recycle. I have been planting an orchard in my yard. However, I don't like the new light bulbs due to the toxins inside them so I won't buy them.

I don't do any of this stuff to save the planet from a myth. I do it, or intend to do it, to save money on gasoline and electricty, or to get exercise, or fresh off the tree peaches, apples and soon pears. There are benefits to living a "greener" lifestyle on it's own.

People that want to see a "greener" planet need to stress these benefits and see how other shift to also take part in these REAL benefits. I stressed this all the time when I was an organizer for the Green Party years ago. But they don't do this. This use fear and Facist/Stalinist Methodology to force people to do these things.

I used to know VERBATIM every single aspect of the Green movement. But I was also a Journalism Major with a double Minor in Physics and Chemistry. I know how to dig through any sources and understood how to analyze the scientific data, or lack thereof. I was a specialist at exactly this type of Journalism.

I researched Global Warming to SUPPORT IT. I wanted to DEFEND IT from it's critics. But I kept finding more and more proof that it was all a HOAX that has never had any solid scientific eveidence to support it whatsoever.

It is a POLITICAL HOAX not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
It is an INVISIBLE OGRE that political types want to use to pretend that they are actually doing something positive.
Nothing more.

Posted by PurpleChest on 2009-11-30 22:18:35

wow.

just.. wow.

I had to reread the blog several times, as at first i ws utterly convinced i was wading through knee high irony.

But, amusingly, you actually believe the Petrochemical-PR site you linked to dont you (itself a bizzarre realisation that 'the Onion' is only about 15% pastiche).

I almost quite enjoy it when yet another North Amercian comes out with this, or the 'creationism' one. May they never realise these are debates only in 'thier heads' ie North America. The rest of us just watch, laugh, and shake out heads rather sadly.

Posted by Zombie69 on 2009-11-30 22:36:25

PainState, either you're kidding, or you're a highly disturbed individual. If you don't think that global warming exists, or that it's caused by man, way to be brainwashed by Bush & Co. I bet you don't believe in evolution either.

Posted by PeteW on 2009-11-30 23:29:14

I thought about making a well considered argument here... but what would be the point?

Have a brick wall instead.

Posted by PeteW on 2009-11-30 23:38:25

and how can I justifiably "stand up against this hoax and be counted" if I don't have access to balanced scientific research? Wouldn't that make me as big a hypocrite as the people you say I should stand up against?

Ahhhh - someone take me away from this lunacy!

Posted by PainState on 2009-12-01 00:04:51

Well this discussion is not finished until AoP-Vimes chimes in with his wisdom on the subject.

Posted by DeMoorck on 2009-12-01 00:05:44

Its the Illuminati I tells ya!! Its a secret plan to ensure the New World Order through a massive global coverup. These enviromental plans will only be measures to take away our freedom.

We all need to stock up on pickup trucks and guns to preserve our freedom and way of life.

Posted by fly on 2009-12-01 00:26:37

i'd vote yes to any tax concerning the luxury waste of livelihood. there's many pandora's boxes and we're opening way too many simultaneously at the moment. go read. (figuring must be too hard, i guess)

Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-12-01 03:52:32

You HOAX denyers will feel really stupid for blindly believing in the biggest hoax ever perpetrated by anyone, anywhere, at any time in history.

In the meantime you will just live in ignorance of the truth... catcalling at those of us that know. You will keep believing in a LIE that has been proven false time, after time, after time and has NEVER been proven true even 1 time.

Posted by CircularLogic on 2009-12-01 12:46:44

The model of man-made climate change explains the climate effect we see reasonably well. It is based on a significant correlation of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global mean temperature. The spectral properties of carbon dioxide support the theory.

I have not heard any more convincing model that relates the increase in global temperature to anything else, nor have I heard another convincing model of the effects of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It`s easy to attack a model, especially when it tries to model something so complex and chaotic as the climate, which is influenced by many factors. I can also see, that scientists are just humans with their flaws. It`s the same like Einstein and his pressure to develop the nuclear bomb. He was bending facts to sell the bigger picture to some short-sighted politician dudes.

Fact still remains, that carbon dioxide is a gas, that is transparent for light of the visible spectrum (and shorter), while it absorbs infra-red radiation. So if there is a lot in the atmosphere, light (and with it energy) will get to the earth, but the earth`s heat, which is radiated off in the IR spectrum, is retained by the absorbing gas. That`s not exactly rocket science and it explains why it got warmer, when the CO2 levels rose. So unless you bring me something else, that is a better explanation for the rise in temperature, I`m going to stick with the current model.
Oh.. and 'it`s a random thing' is not really a better explanation.

Posted by PeteW on 2009-12-01 20:10:20

Bah.

Okay, Painstate and Catalyst, you win.

I actually thought you were serious, but now I see you have been having us on.

Good one!

Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-12-01 21:43:18

CircularLogic...
Carbon Emissions are still rising... right?
So... Why has the Earth been getting cooler each year now for more than a decade?

It has been getting cooler... the breaking news from the past week shows that some of the scientists primarily responsible for the models you still believe in admitted as such and tried to cover it up.

The model says Carbon Emissions go up and Temperature gets warmer. But the exact opposite has occured. That cannot be denied. The THEORY that the models are based on are not SCIENCE. They are THEORY and they have been debunked and disproved.

Posted by f_alk on 2009-12-01 22:32:42

I can not believe a single one of your claims in your first post, about having studied sciences (as a minor) and about being able to churn through publications and about that you are a specialist in that.

The only science then is thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Everything else is a THEORY. If it has no data to back it up, it is even less - it is a HYPOTHESIS.
SCIENCE works in setting up a HYPOTHESIS, then checking it with DATA to make it a THEORY.

As well, the cooler decade (which is the new decade and not the last decade mind you) are no "breaking news" but come from the same THEORY that nicely explains the temperature behavior so far. One prediction is a cooler decade where warming ceases. This "news" is now ... what ... more than a year old?

Posted by PainState on 2009-12-02 03:32:13

Well we can go back and forth on theories VS Hypothesis and science. BUT that is not what this about.

What this really is about is a small group of scientist in the highest level of power to influence policy for the entire "west" have manipulated data, dumped data, lied and deceived to skew the results of their findings for a political agenda.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html]nice article summarizing what this is really about[/url]

we can all go back and forth about if their is/not Global warming and just butt heads. There are only about 100 scientist that are in the inner circle of that debate.

This is way beyond science and hell bent towards a political agenda that effects all of us.

Posted by f_alk on 2009-12-02 13:15:26

People who believe "scientists" who are funded by oil and coal companies and who claim that global warming is non-existant .... are much like the people twenty years ago who believed when scientists funded by the tobacco industry claimed that smoking does not cause cancer.

Posted by PainState on 2009-12-02 16:31:44

WHAT? SO Iam wrong to belive that Global Warming is a hoax because I posted a link to a sight that according to you received over $300,000 from "oil intrests". BUT I could post a link to sight that is funded with probally over 100 Million dollars that support Al Gore and his small group of UN scientist that are proposing all these changes we must do in the name of saving the world? Not including all the other Donations for the cause from every "green" movement publication that has been supporting these claims since the early 1990's.

If this is a matter of funding then we are both wrong and there will never be an answer because in the end no one would not be tainted according to your "test" on who is right and wrong.

Of course the replys to this point have basically been all the same.
PainState is nuts.
He is a right winger.
He loves W.
Any story that supports the hoax theory are just backed by "oil" money.

So in a nut shell...the same old crap for the last 20 years the Global Warming nuts have been saying.

BTW what the hell ever happened to the Ozone layer. 3 years of scientist going nuts, the same that are going nuts over Global warming, the world has to respond and in the United States all kinds of new industries are created to support these false claim. And then a few years later it comes out that the NASA sattelite that all this data was drawn from is faulty and has been out of calibration for many years. The Ozone layer suddenly reforms once a new sattelite is launched, the world is saved and it blows over. In its wake, millionaires spring up all over and many bussiness are shut down in the AC and heating bussiness. Auto makers have to spend billions to retool. But its all good, the world was saved because of these dilligent scientist. What ever.

Posted by PainState on 2009-12-02 16:42:27

And on a side note. The Tobacco industry hired experts to defend themselves from the claims that they were making highly addictive products. Those scientist were attempting to make a case against that charge. The tobbacco industry never really tried to defend itself against the cancer charge because they could never prove that it did not cause cancer. But then again it seem everything now a days causes cancer. ANd of course on the flip side the anti-smoking crowd could never prove that smoking does cause cancer. Thus in the end since neither side could actually make their case the Tabbacco companies setteled outside of court with the Feds and this all went away. Because in the end it was really about "shaking" down the Tobacco industry for billions. If it really was about helping people with addiction to smoking and all that drivel there would have been laws passed, officials from the Tobacco industry thrown in jail for making products that kill and so forth. But once the FED got its money it all went away and to boot. Protection from the FED that the industry could not be sued ever again on this charge. Thus the anti-smoking groups are going nuts on how to get around the fact that they cant sue Big Tobacco any more.

Plus the Tobbacco industry VS the United States Govt is no were near the level of Global Warming.

If the Global Warming movement gets away with this fraud they will change the entire political/social structure of every country in the EU, United States, Australia and Canada...Since those are the only countries that will go along with the new UN mandated laws that will go into effect.

Posted by f_alk on 2009-12-02 21:46:06

You should read about the ozone layer and its slow yet forward way to recovery since the ban of CFCs. Have you not heard that the cause of the hole in the ozone layer has been banned several years ago?
Or go to Australia and ask for the number of melanoma over the last 5 decades.

If that what you presented really is your information then without doubt you must believe that global warming is a hoax.

Posted by PainState on 2009-12-02 22:36:46

Well I have obviously failed in the written word to write what I mean.

I BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX.

The Ozone layer was just fine and nothing we did changed the ozone layer either way.


cut and dry.

Posted by Timlagor on 2009-12-03 14:11:44

LOL

Posted by Arktoris on 2009-12-03 19:37:24

Thank you catalyst32 for your post. It's refreshing to see an environmentalist who actually has a brain. I partially agree with you. I'm all for modernizing energy use for the same reasons George W Bush was...to cut down on foreign oil dependency. Not allowing our enemies to squeeze us dry of cash for oil is enough reason alone for energy conservation and modern energy resources. Add to that the health benefits and such it simply makes sense.

Circularlogic,
the flaw in your CO2 model rests in the statement "when there's a lot of this gas". Fact: carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. According to global data the world's CO2 over 50 years has risen from 0.0330% to 0.0336%.

That means carbon dioxide has risen from 0.0% to a "dangerous"....0.0% At best, the greenhouse phenomena would have a "local warming" effect such as around Los Angeles where their is a high density of traffic with valleys trapping the air and preventing recirculation.

however I'll tell you what, as a chemist myself, I'll find out what's the inherent J of energy in CO2 infrared absorption (If memory serves, is 2200 cm-1 wavenumbers) and we'll calculate the energy difference absorbed by that 0.0006% increase...and then compare it to the energy of burning those fossil fuels. I think you'll find there are FAR bigger influences on the world's temperature than some trace gas.

#1 cause....the sun. It's not a homogenous ball of gas with a steady output. It too has storms and various outputs. Which best explains why Mars' ice caps are melting away too...and they also had a record number of storms during 2005 followed by a year of calm (2006) etc etc. Again, I have to get back to work so I can't look certain things up now, but I believe Nature september 2006/7 had a great article on this.

To my fellow Americans: Global warming is a hoax. Don't let it bleed your ecomony dry, or the world's temperature being 1 degree hotter shall be the least of your problems.

To my fellow competitors in Europe: Global warming is the biggest problem of the 21st century! Watch your carbon footprint! No tax is too high, and no sacrifice too great to avoid this calamity! ahhhhhh!!!!

Posted by f_alk on 2009-12-04 00:11:13

- CO2 is a rather weak "greenhouse gas" - true, but it stays in the atmosphere for a rather long time once it is in there.
- H2O is an extremely potent greenhouse gas which a short time in the atmosphere.
- the amount of H20 vapor depends on the temperature of the atmosphere (gas pressure equilibrium). A tad higher temperature (caused by a tad higher C02 concentration) leads to more H2O in the atmosphere leads to an even higher temperature.
While the H2O is easily reabsorbed/condensed, the CO2 stays.
This will lead to another equilibrium, but at a much higher temperature than the CO2 alone could account for.

The problem is "positive feedback". If anyone of you has skills in the design of feedback system or designing controllers, those will know that positive feedback *always* is unstable.

For a good read:
"We Wathermakers" by Tim Flannery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weather_Makers

Posted by Fela on 2009-12-11 11:13:14

Successful lobbyist work like this is the number one reason why the USA, despite all their potential, are filled with so many more Morons than one would reasonably expect.