The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Tomk80]

Oh please.

 

[KCDAD]

Oh please.

How about this: You want to keep your job? Get on board. Otherwise we will experience a cutback in funding and that means jobs... guess who will be the first to go?

Look who is against these global crisis fanatics... the founder of Greenpeace! Oh, I'm sure he's is in the pocket of big oil!

 

[Chalnoth]

Like this:
Politic 1: "Hey, we need more money from taxes."
Politic 2: "We can't increase then, there will be revolution if we do that."
Politic 1: "So, do you have any idea."
Politic 2: "Let's see. These guys climatologists say that the climate is warming up. All people know that CO[sub]2[/sub] causes greenhouse effect, so why we don't blame it and tax people that produce it."
Politic 1: "Great idea. But they will not believe us."
Politic 2: "We will create IPCC then... Those climatologists must start earning their money."

Well, that's not the stupidest idea I've ever heard. But it's definitely up there.

 

[Chalnoth]

How about this: You want to keep your job? Get on board. Otherwise we will experience a cutback in funding and that means jobs... guess who will be the first to go?

Can you supply any evidence that this has happened? Remember that in the scientific community, this sort of manipulation of results is met with outrage. See, for example:
http://www.defendscience.org/

 

[KCDAD]

Can you supply any evidence that this has happened? Remember that in the scientific community, this sort of manipulation of results is met with outrage. See, for example:
http://www.defendscience.org/

You are killing me!

 

[Tomk80]

How about this: You want to keep your job? Get on board. Otherwise we will experience a cutback in funding and that means jobs... guess who will be the first to go?

In scientific jobs I have experienced till now? The ones without criticism.

Look who is against these global crisis fanatics... the founder of Greenpeace! Oh, I'm sure he's is in the pocket of big oil!

Who cares? Neither is he a climate scientist.

Seriously, the discussion is about the data. So far, I have yet to see the anti-global warming side here presenting anything that seriously puts a dent in the conclusions of human-caused climate change, you least of all.

I don't care who opposes anthropogenic climate change or who doesn't, I do care about the data. If you have anything of that, feel free to bring it up.

 

[Tomk80]

You are killing me!

Feel free to present the data. Given your responses so far, I do not think I'll hold my breath in waiting for it.

 

[TheBear]

Has anyone seen this?

 

[Tomk80]

Has anyone seen this?

Interesting, especially with regard to the article that came out in science earlier this month. Haven't got the link handy right now, but it has come up earlier in this thread. That article stated that there was no correlation between current global warming and any of the measures for solar activity (like the sunspot count mentioned in the above article). I'll have to read a bit more on this to really come back with something.

 

[FishFace]

I agree that their shapes are completely different. I also see that the first orange line starts higher than actual while the second one starts lower. How do you explain that? The CO[sub]2[/sub] that is released now changes the past? I wander what graph would be produced by the model if the initial state was set like one known from the red line. I mean, why they set arbitrary high initial state when they want to show how their model copes with current trends and arbitrary low initial state when they want to show how their model will not work without their CO[sub]2[/sub] "fix".

When does the graph start?
When did emissions start?

Thank you.

You will also notice that, although the second graph finishes about 0.6/0.7 away from the actual temperatures, the average deviation for the period 1980 - 2000 is considerably higher, whereas the average deviation for the same period on the first graph is very low; the final point on the lower graph is at unusually good agreement and if the graph had finished two years you earlier you would have no case at all.
(I'm sorry, I think I just falsely implied you had a case.)

 

[TheBear]

I'll have to read a bit more on this to really come back with something.

Interesting approach. It tells me you're locked into your position dogmatically. "I can't refute this right now. But by golly, it just has to be wrong."

Not the scientific approach I expected...

 

[FishFace]

Yes, I don't have one, but particle accelerators are still outside the politically induced hysteria.

But you've just accepted that science doesn't need to be repeatable by the public to be valid. Good - you've implicitly rescinded your original point.

 

[FishFace]

You are killing me!

So, to the question of "can you provide any evidence" the answer was, "you are killing me."

I'm pretty sure that can be read as a "no," then.

 

[Baggins]

That's not true and you know it. Apparently there are people that are not involved, but unfortunately they somehow become "former professors of climatology". So, it is obvious that if you don't agree, you're out of the field. Thus, this is not science, but politics.

You can find dissenters from any scientific hypothesis. Being a contrarian can be quite lucrative especially when the contrary side protects vested interests.

I would ask you "do the vast majority of climate scientists agree that man is driving global warming or do they not"

It is a simple question.

But probably a painful one for you to contemplate.

I repeat: When a a scientific concensus is reached that concensus is usually as accurate as present evidence allows.

If for some reason you find that difficult to accept than that is tough.

 

[Baggins]

Interesting approach. It tells me you're locked into your position dogmatically. "I can't refute this right now. But by golly, it just has to be wrong."

Not the scientific approach I expected...

Since when has going away and studying a piece of research been unscientific.



I think the rest of Team Rational may want to have a word with you about that.

 

[SLP]

I couldn't find any refutation to the claim that the oceans are biggest source of CO2. They also confirm that levels of CO2 follow temperature changes, not vice versa.

This is funny.

A person wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper a while ago hawking 'Swindle' and after about 2 minutes of Googling, I found out it was essentially dishonest propaganda. So, I wrote a letter back to the editor, and I left a message on a right-wing blog that I had come across while Googling. My message was merely that the video was not quite as honest as it makes itself out to be, and the right-winger on that blog lambasted me for not discussing the issues in the video and for daring to question his take on it since he supposedly has a phD in physics or something. I write about it here.


So, when Upisoft is given links pointing out some of the same dishonest claims and flaws in the video, his retort is to ask where the refutation of one particular claim is...

Reminds me of a scene ion Woody Allen's "Banana's", when his girlfriend is breaking up with him, citing his immaturity. Woody asks "How am I immature???" His girlfriend responds, "Emotionally, sexually and psychologically." Woody immediately retorts, "Yes, but what other ways!?"

 

[Tomk80]

Interesting approach. It tells me you're locked into your position dogmatically. "I can't refute this right now. But by golly, it just has to be wrong."

Not the scientific approach I expected...

On the one hand I have a paper published in science magazine stating that there is no correlation between solar acitivity and global warming.

On the other hand I have the newsarticle of scientists claiming the exact opposite on the basis of the effect of solar activity on rain.

Then I say that I will need to read up more to really give an opinion on this. How is this me saying that the latter "must be wrong" and how is this unscientific and inidicating that I am stuck in my position? Yes, at this point I think the best conclusion we can draw based on the evidence currently available. Now, I am confronted with an article that claims a solar influence opposite to a very recent article claiming the opposite. The latter of these I have read and understood, the former I have yet to investigate completely. Sorry thebear, but nothing in scientific reasoning obliges me to draw a different conclusion until I have fully read and understood the new data given.

 

[KCDAD]

So, to the question of "can you provide any evidence" the answer was, "you are killing me."

I'm pretty sure that can be read as a "no," then.

There is more than enough evidence that you are ignoring out there already. Try the graph Gore uses to sow the correlation between carbon and temperature... conveniently ignoring tat temperature increases BEFORE carbon increases reversing the causal factors...

Read Bear's article... watch Glen Beck's CNN report, the BBC's report from 1992 and 2007. Read about carbon offsets and who benefits, read about African energy resources and who wants control of them.
Investigate... quit believing what the government and mainstream media is telling you.

 

[Chalnoth]

Investigate... quit believing what the government and mainstream media is telling you.

It seems you are the one that is believing the government and mainstream media. The scientific community has reached consensus: the current global warming is caused by humans, will be very destructive to society, and we can do quite a lot to slow it down or stop it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Do you know what consensus means? 30 out of how many? 270?

Do you really believe that every person in "all the national academies of science" agree? Don't be naive. Where do these academies get their funding? Follow the money.

So first you're saying that there's no consensus, now you're saying that consensus doesnt mean anything. Interesting. Conspiracy doesnt work in science, there are too many idealists. They arent all bought by fear mongering interests. BTW if the govt funded academies are so biased then why arent the govts doing more to curtail global warming? If their position is bought and paid for by the govt then they should be following the govt line.