Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #1 

Global Cooling?/Global Warming?? / Climate Change???

In is interesting to see the Global Warming/Climate Change debate, which has been raging for over 20 years has now hit the pages of the Gazette.  It is equally interesting to see those who are believers in the theory of global warming are regurgitating arguments which have been discredited for years.

Reading the recent article in the Gazette by one of the Global Warming believers he basically argues two propositions:

  1.  If you take a sealed glass box and double the CO2 content of that closed system … the temperature will rise … hence if CO2 increases in the earth’s atmosphere … the planet will warm up.
  2. Global warming must be a true theory because 98% (or some other overwhelming figure) of all climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activity.

Of course the problems with the man-made global warming theory are manifest including the following:

  1. Since we have been aware since at least the middle ages that the sky is not a closed canopy and that the earth is an open system operating within our galaxy …. The closed glass box container is not a useful or scientifically sound allegory and therefore does not prove their fundamental tenant namely … man made CO2 causes global warming.  In actuality, the earth’s eco system is infinitely more complex with elements like clouds and aerosols constituting negative factors which serve to counteract any propensity for global warming.  If our planet did not have these built in countervailing factors … it would have burned up ages ago.
  2. Scientific truths are not established by applying the consensus theory of truth but rather by applying the scientific method which entails the correspondence theory of truth..  When the scientific method is applied to the global warming theory, it becomes evident that the empirical evidence does not support their theory.  The empirical evidence establishes that:
    1. There is no direct correlation between C02 content in the atmosphere and temperature.  There have been periods when C02 has marginally increased and temperatures have during that period have actually decreased.
    2. C02 is not the critical element in causing the greenhouse effect (which makes the earth habitable) it is H20 … but none of these global warming believers are advocating the elimination of water from the planet.
    3. The entire global warming theory is based on computer models which inherently contain assumptions which in turn generate computerized predictions of global warming …. However in the past 30 years NONE of these predictions have proven true.  The arctic ice cap has not disappeared.  The polar bear population has increased not declined.  New York is not under water as they predicted. The ocean levels have not risen to catastrophic levels etc. etc. Hence the global warming theory is based on computer models … but is not supported by empirical evidence.  It is a “scientific” theory which is not successful at predicting future climate … and of course … the ability to use a scientific theory to predict the future is what separates science from fiction.
    4. Overriding the foregoing scientific problems with this theory is the astounding lack of intellectual integrity employed by the people promoting the global warming theory, including:
      1. The hockey stick graph which predicted catastrophic global warming by the year 2000  was conclusively established to be fraudulent;
      2. The refusal of any of these global warming “research centres” to allow other scientists access to their data in order to make a valid assessment of their theory.  (Assess to data to test the validity of a theory has been the accepted practice in scientific circles since the scientific revolution became a reality)
      3. The Climategate scandal in which it was proven that temperature readings at weather stations around the world had been manipulated to manufacture data to support their global warming theory.
      4. The concerted conspiracy on the part of global warming believers to attempt to reconstruct history and eliminate the Midieval Warming Period. In the Midieval Warming Period the planet experienced global warming (and an economic boom) but Henry Ford had not actually got his combustion engine off the ground in the 1500’s.  Hence global warming occurred without any man made CO2 as a by-product of industrialization. The fact that there was global warming prior to the industrial revolution creates serious causation problems for the global warming theory.
      5. The planet Mars has experienced similar global warming and global cooling periods as the earth thereby pointing to the fact that the prime cause of climate change is …. You guessed it … THE SUN.  (Did you know that an overwhelming majority of highly qualified scientists have discovered that it is cooler in the shade than it is in the sun?)

When you hear someone talking about how 90% of all climate scientists believe in global warming that actually means this “90% of all climate scientists who got a grant from the government to study global warming believe that global warming exists.”  In actual fact there are thousands of qualified scientists who strenuously refute the theory …. Just check out the Oregon Petition.

There seem to be two simple questions that the climate change believers fail to answer and those are:
1.  If CO2 causes global warming .... why have you suddently switched to the climate change mantra which would include global cooling and global warming.  How can CO2 cause both?

2.  If your theory is so "scientific" why can't you predict anything with accuracy?

0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #2 
We need Global Warming, and Fast!!

"Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html#ixzz3fbQl7bVb 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #3 
Albertashank:  That's basically the same predictions that they made in the 1970's.  They were predicting a new ice age ... and a guy by the name of Suzuki (you probably know the name) was terrified and advocating that we take ashes and spread them over the entire Arctic Ice cap to stop the reflection of the sun ... thereby fending of the impending ice age.

Note:  The radio evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong used to predict the end of the world on a regular basis ... and this proved to be a profitable exercise for him also.
0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #4 
The sun is all that matters. From 2012

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle. ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase. ► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlbertaShank
The sun is all that matters. From 2012

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle. ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase. ► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature



So based on that rather tepid and tentative prediction that we MAY experience a whole 1 degree change in temperature in some locations over a period of 11 years  and given that none of their other predictions have proven true .... I vote that the Western Civilizations not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this global warming / global cooling/climate change theory. After all, the climate has been changing on this planet for millions of years ... and attempting to reduce CO2  which is less than 0.05% of the greenhouse gases and unproven as the cause of climate change and thereby disrupt the entire economy of many nations is preposterous.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #6 
Ok, at the risk of getting eviscerated I just have to respond to all the climate-change denial talk. I'm not going to spout off a bunch of facts and figures, because frankly, numbers can be skewed however one wants. I have a science background and what is very concerning to me is to see how science is being disputed. I read an interesting, and alarming, statistic: 45% of Americans do NOT believe in evolution. This is frightening to me, and seems to show a "dumbing-down" of society in general. Oh, they'll go on about how evolution is still just a theory...the planet is only as old as the bible says; never mind about the science of carbon-dating or palaeontology. Men didn't land on the moon (it was staged), vaccinations are wrong and on and on. Somehow it's always possible to find "experts" to corroborate those views. Just like it was possible for tobacco companies to find scientists to insist cigarettes were NOT harmful at all. Now it's "global warming", or more correctly: climate change. It was a cold winter! Global warming is a hoax! Forget about how glaciers are receding...anyone else see how far the Columbia ice-fields have shrunk? Quite a bit in my lifetime. Oh, but that's normal, insist the climate change deniers. Polar bear population increasing or decreasing? Depends who you ask, and their motive. Which brings me to my concern...we have conflicting arguments put forward by conflicting interest groups. Maybe take a very close look at the arguments you choose to believe. Who are they ACTUALLY speaking for. Because we have one home and there is no backup plan if we screw up. Here's an interesting article:

http://globalnews.ca/news/865168/the-great-climate-change-debate/
0
AlbertaShank

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 115
Reply with quote  #7 
There is no man made climate change.  Climate has been changing for eons.  And will continue to do so.  It was warmer ages ago, and colder, and warmer.   The fanatics focusing on carbon are the problem.  It is nothing more than a money transfer scheme - follow the money. Al Gore has made a fortune on this lie, so has Suzuki.

What these maroons should be focusing on is pollution, clear air and water.  Not "climate change" man can do nothing about.

People point to record high temperatures - such a lie, and such simpletons.  When a city grows size, you add materials that absorb the sun, so by simple physics you have a warmer city.  Using temperatures in non-populated areas you get a completely different story, one that the media and the climate mafia crooks don't want to talk about.

History is lost on these man made climate imbeciles.  Almost every station in the 1800 and 1900's received heating oil and fuel based on temperature reports (that's right, reports by man).  Guess what, by recording a lower temperature, they would receive a great amount of heating oil/fuel, so lower temperatures where the norm (but not reality).  

These governments are here to take your money, and we will let them by electing the fools we elect.  
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #8 

@K Van Hoof:

Kathy:  I always read your posts with great interest as they are informative and well stated.  And although I disagree with the argument you put forward in this particular post …. that is hardly justification to “eviscerate” you.  This propensity towards ad hominine attacks simply because someone has a different perspective has become all too common.  It inhibits discussion and detracts from both the quality and the enjoyment of blogs such as this one.  Therefore let me attempt to respond to your post by attempting to raise alternative arguments as a rebuttal so that the argument can be “joined”

First of all, I do not think characterizing those who challenge the global warming/climate change theory as “denialists.” in any way advances the argument for global warming/climate change theory.  I suppose as a political tactic the attempt to infer that global warming sceptics are as illiterate as the holocaust deniers serves the global warming crowd’s purposes but does nothing to advance the validity of their theory.

Secondly, the attempt to compare the arguments of the global warming/climate change sceptic to the anti-evolution position, the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the smokers defence league is basically a straw man argument.  The reason why we are sceptical of the global warming/climate change theory is because of the lack of solid intellectually sound scientific practices employed by the global warming theorists not because we deny the validity of science. 

Let me elaborate. First, real science does not depend upon the consensus theory of truth … it has historically relied on the correspondence theory of truth.  Since the Enlightenment science has developed theories and then scrupulously examined the empirical data to ensure the data and the theory correspond.  If there is no correspondence … they abandon the theory and search for a new scientific explanation.  In the global warming school … the empirical data does not correspond with their computer model predictions and so they move on to the “truth by consensus” argument. All the global warming crowd ever does …. is recite their ritual about how “97% of all the world’s leading climatologists believe in global warming”  This classic application of “truth by consensus” theory has no validity in the world of hard science.  (BTW … if you do the research you will find thousands of scientists who do not believe in the man-made global warming theory …. See the Oregon Petition and other Petitions.  If you research the matter further you will find that the way they arrive at this overwhelming concensus is by polling the global warming supporters and proclaiming anyone who disagrees as being a non-expert and not entitled to vote in the poll even though their academic credentials are impeccable.)

Secondly, the reason many do not accept their “science” is because their scientific practices are at best questionable and at worst fraudulent.  The hockey stick graph, which was the IPCC’s posterchild for global warming was irrefutably proven to be invalid.  The climategate scandal proves conclusively that climate scientists were hiding the decline in global temperatures because at that time they had predicted catastrophic global warming.  Additionally the emails exposed during the Climategate scandal establish that they were scheming as to ways to “eliminate” the Midieval Warming Period as this poses a serous threat to the theory.  Further, the major climate research centres in both England and the U.S. have refused to provide their raw data to other scientists so that they can make an impartial objective assessment of how the data fits their theory.  This refusal to provide the data runs contrary to established scientific practices for the last two centuries.  Additionally, it is now irrefutably documented that there was a concerted effort over a period of years to move weather stations from their existing location into heat sinks simply to get the readings they desired to support their global warming theory.  And finally, none of their predictions have proven true … and the validity of any scientific theory is its ability to predict the future.

Here is a typical example of their shoddy “scientific” research.  A couple of “scientists” from our U of A. (on the taxpayers dime and with the support of the  well known global warming believers called The Pembina Institute) flew over the N.W. T. looking for caribou herds.  They noticed that the herd which was located north of the Saskatchewan boundary last year was no longer there.  After flying around for some time they concluded that the caribou herd must have died … and that, of course, this was caused by global warming.  They arrived home and with great fanfare announced to the world that Global Warming was killing off the caribou herd.  Suzuki jumped on the stage to scare the sh$t out of kids by saying Santa Clause was going to lose his reindeer.  Then a sceptic flew up to the N.W.T. and talked to the Natives in that area.  They calmly explained that the Caribou had moved off into the bush in northern Saskatchewan as they had been doing periodically throughout history.  The sceptic went into the bush in Northern Saskatchewan … and guess what … there was the herd of Caribou eating grass and reading The Night Before Christmas. 

So that’s why we are suspect of their “science” …. because their science is suspect.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #9 

It is interesting to note how few facts were actually contained in the St. A. Gazette article styled “The Facts on Climate Change.”

Godo Stoyke, the president of a corporation which makes its profits from CO2 alarmism, merely recites the age old arguments which have been discredited years ago.

 First, he says the IPCC, a UN organization, says there is global warming/climate change caused by man and so it must be true.  The problem is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was never established to determine whether climate change was man made … the U.N. assumed this theory was true and the IPCC was established to develop evidence to justify the theory.  Relying on the IPCC to determine validity of the Man-made Global Warming/Climate Change Theory is like relying on the College of Cardinals in Rome to determine whether Catholicism is the best version of Christianity. 

Secondly, Stoyke gives us the old saw that there is a huge consensus of climatologists who believe the theory of Man-made Global Warming and therefore it must be true.  However, when you examine the details of this “consensus” you discover that over 96% of the scientists who are getting grants to study global warming believe in global warming.  In fact, there are thousands of scientists who are sceptical of this theory but they are never included in the census. Consequently, aside from the fact that science does not operate on a consensus, the “consensus argument is meaningless.

Finally, what is notable is that Stoyke never actually presents FACTS which support the global warming/climate change theory … he simply presents other third party opinions.  That is because, for all the “studying” these global warming alarmists have done …. they been unable to correlate the empirical evidence of temperature increase to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The empirical evidence establishes that while CO2 has increased in the last few years …. the climate temperatures over the past 18 plus years have not increased at all but rather have modestly declined.. Historically there is also no correlation between CO2 and temperature. 

The fact is that the correlation between CO2, which forms less than one thousand of a per cent of the greenhouse gases, and global warming has never been established.  If it had … we would have heard about it over and over and over again … but in the meantime … they have to rely on the consensus argument … and science is not about consensus … although maybe religion is.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #10 

You just can’t make this stuff up! 

All this time I thought that ISIS was an extreme militant Islamic Organization which proclaimed a caliphate over all Muslims and a war against all non-Muslims.  However, Martin O’Malley, one of the candidates running for Democrat nomination for President of the USA declares that ISIS was caused by Climate Change! 

His theory is that: “One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation state of Syria and the rise of ISIS, was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that nation, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis that created the symptoms — or rather, the conditions — of extreme poverty that has now led to the rise of ISIS and this extreme violence.”

Aside from the fact that Iraq and Syria are almost entirely desert and has been so since at least Biblical times and hence there has been no mega-drought which wiped out the farmers and created a humanitarian crisis, O’Malley has it nailed.  It’s just too bad that the Middle East doesn’t have any oil to sell to the rest of the world so that they can solve the “poverty” induced by climate change
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #11 

It is with considerable curiosity that I watch the Climate Change debate continue in the Gazette. 

Recently a professional engineer named Ralph Smeding submitted a letter to the Gazette in which he referred to a scientific paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu  in which the data on climate was accumulated and established that  the current warming trend (which is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age) started long before the invention of the combustion machine and hence prior to the increase in CO2 emissions due to human activities.. The conclusions of the Akasofu study were: that the Earth experienced a Little Ice Age between 1200 – 1400 in which the earth was cooler.  There has been a gradual recovery from that cooling period which has been basically linear up to 2000A.D.  Of course, what the data shows is that there is no correlation between climate and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and hence the catastrophic man made global warming theory is bogus.

 

Needless to say the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd goes into apoplexy.  Some guy by the name of Dave Burkhart (whose scientific qualifications remain strangely absent) responds saying  “The Akasofu study is not credible, a hypothesis put forward having not been tested.”  Of course he does not provide any scientific data to discredit the Akasofu thesis.  Additionally, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Akasofu is supposed to test his hypothesis since he does not have his own private planet to use as a test model.  However Burkhart does however, revert to the old concensus song and dance namely “the vast majority of scientists who have received grants to study man made global warming say that global warming is the result of man’s activities.”  It gives new meaning to the old phrase “money talks.”

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #12 
This may be of interest here:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/science/article/CO2-is-making-Earth-greener-too-bad-about-the-7376684.php?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

CO2 is making Earth greener

0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #13 
Hmmm. . . . does that mean that politicians like Trudeau and Notley who flit around the world in CO2 producing planes are actually helping to green the planet and encourage higher food production to eliminate world hunger? These watermelon politicians never cease to amaze me.
0
birdwatcher

Member
Registered:
Posts: 48
Reply with quote  #14 
All debate aside, let's not forget that in all past global warming periods, CO2 rose AFTER the warming. 

This is the first time that CO2 has risen BEFORE the warming trend, and continues to.

That is not a good thing, and the only difference is that industrial activity is part of the equation.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #15 
Birdwatcher:  Since the satellite evidence is that there has been no global warming in the past 18 years, and this is the most reliable method of determining climate change,  where is the evidence of a CO2 increase before the "global warming trend.?"   In fact the geological evidence shows the there have been periods where CO2 has increased and climate temperatures have dropped.  There has also been geological periods in which CO2 has increased and temperature has increased.  So where is the evidence that CO2 causes global warming?

Ignoring the scientific data and relying on computer models and land temperatures which have been "adjusted" to fit the theory ...... this is not a good thing.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #16 
Another viewpoint:

0
kellex98

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #17 
HH that is awesome! Makes total sense. Can you provide the link so I can post this in FB?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellex98
HH that is awesome! Makes total sense. Can you provide the link so I can post this in FB?


< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv60bC11qqc >
0
kellex98

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #19 
Thanks! [biggrin]
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #20 
My pleasure. [smile]
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #21 

For those who have decided it is absolutely critical to inflict significant damage on Alberta's economy to save the Marshall Islands from a rising sea due to global warming, check this out:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/the-marshall-islands-and-their-sea-level-changes/
It shows a graph in which it is claimed that one of the Marshall Islands (Kwajalein) is experiencing a rising sea ... while another Marshall Island (Majuro) is showing no sea rise whatsoever.

So if the Pacific Ocean is rising due to thermal expansion caused by global warming ... why would one island appear to be suffering a rising sea level while the adjacent island is not???

Probable answer ... there is no evidence of a rising sea but rather the island of Kwajalein is experiencing a land subsidence which is a very common event which has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. If it were a result of a rising sea level both would be experiencing the same thing.

BTW ... where is the sea temperature data to show the sea has actually warmed from global warming to produce the thermal expansion which is required for their climate change/sea level rise theory?  Their probable answer ... we don't have any..... however, that doesn't matter because we feel so good and so morally superior in our crusade to save the Marshall Islands we don't need any scientific basis for our beliefs.

0
Princess Carver

Member
Registered:
Posts: 36
Reply with quote  #22 
I hope people take global warming seriously. Most of the people I know don't. :/
2
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #23 
Take it seriously... there is no man made climate change.  Nothing Man can do about it. It was warmer in the 1200's, it was warmer millions of years ago, billions or years.  It was colder, etc. etc.. It's called the Sun, It's called natural cycles of planetary systems.  

Here is some absolute proof of NO man made climate change : http://www.sciencealert.com/mars-is-actually-still-recovering-for-an-ice-age-that-ended-400-000-years-ago

No Coal plants on Mars.... 

Climate Change plans here on Earth are merely tax schemes, wealth transfer schemes.  Just look at how much money Al Gore (creator of the greatest Lie on Earth Movie) has earned... It's disgusting.
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #24 
Climate Change is cloudy! In fact it is a hoax being perpetrated on our wallets. Carbon Tax is not about Climate Change but all about revenue. Ontario has spent billions with little results except make people poor!
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #25 

It would seem to be proof positive that that Global Warming Crowd realize they are losing the debate when the author of the hockey stick graph (Michael Mann) considers it necessary to respond to Ken Allred's opinion piece in the Gazette.

Mann regurgitates the old tired argument about the overwhelming consensus of scientists think that climate change is real and caused by mankind ..... but neglects to point out that both the original survey and subsequent surveys on this question have been shown to be badly flawed and in fact thousands of scientists contest his hypothesis.

Mann regurgitates the old tired argument that man made climate change deniers are simply paid stooges for the oil industry but neglects to point out that his side of the debate receives many more millions in government grants and funding from global warming extremists to generate their argument.

The actual facts which Mann did nothing to refute are that this "hockey stick graph" was demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed by two Canadians McIntyre and McKitrick, because:
1. the use of tree rings as a proxy to measure CO2 was sketchy because other factors like increased rainfall produce thicker annual tree rings;
2. Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events and the occurrence of these events are indisputable.
3. Mann's selective use of tree rings to support his theory seemed less than objective and questionable as a scientific practice.

Most importantly, Mann's dramatic rise in global temperatures as shown in the hockey stick's blade never occurred and thus the empirical evidence negated Mann's entire hockey stick theory. Consequently, his hockey stick graph was never again used in the subsequent IPPC reports.

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.