Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #26 
For those interested in the alleged CO2 problem see:  http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371

Here is a sample of the article.

Myth: The graph by Mann, et al., the so-called "hockey stick" used in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, showing 1,000 years of stable temperatures until the twentieth century when the temperatures rose rapidly after humans began putting large quantities of CO2 in to the atmosphere, proved that CO2 has caused global warming. 

Fact: Later the IPCC removed the Mann graph, since Mann left out data that showed the climate had varied considerably over the past 1,000 years before humans had introduced significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.


[WhichGraphDoYouBelieveLeightonSteward]
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #27 

Soooo ... if the climate was considerably warmer in 1200 AD long before the Industrial Revolution and long before man made CO2 ... and if we are now simply coming out of the Little Ice Age with evidence of gradual global warming ... then the following questions would seem germane........

Why are we shutting down the coal industry when our current scrubber technology removes 98% of the particulate matter from coal fired chimneys ?????

Why are we talking about shutting down the oil and gas industry which fuels our modern society and has given us prosperity when CO2 is not the driver of climate change?????

Answer: Because we have allowed the growth of a whole Climate Alarmism Industry ... fueled by billions of dollars in Government grants given out by politicians who discovered that being on the Global warming bandwagon works for them to get re-elected ...... which in turn finances endless articles by academics which either promote the Climate Alarmism or tacitly do not argue against global warming so that they can get more grants to live in the life style they have become accustom.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #28 

For those who think that those advocating for the extinguishment of coal, oil, and gas as a source of cheap efficient energy to be replaced by renewables, are on to something, here is food for thought. The Google company decided they wanted to become powered entirely be "renewable" energy but after an extensive study concluded as follows.

"Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating, and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fiber, neodymium, shipping and hauling, etc., would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms—and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/giving-green-energy-the-old-google-try/#ixzz4Bs7bUjPo

So, if Google can't figure out how to get rid of oil, gas, and coal, produced electrical energy do you think the Trudeau, Wynne, Notely team will be successful?  Its too bad that so many segments of society are going to suffer because we have two political parties who spend most of their time down the rabbit hole with Alice.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #29 

I often wonder as to what criteria the Gazette employs to determine the letters to the Editor which they will publish.

Having read John Hammond's "Challenging column on climate change" it is difficult to characterize this as a challenge to Ken Allred's article. It seems that describing it as a disconnected discombobulation of stream-consciousness would be a more accurate characterization of his essay. If he was attempting to make a point or points supported by a coherant alignment of the facts, his effort is certainly well disguised.

There are arguments to support the AGW theory, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.  This raises my original question "why does such stuff ever get published?"

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #30 
For those who are interested in a solid encapsulation of the misdeeds of the global warming crowd the following article may be of interest.

The Hillary Treatment for Climate Fraudsters?

Paul Driessen

http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2016/07/16/the-hillary-treatment-for-climate-fraudsters-n2193168

This past March, 17 attorneys general launched a coordinated effort to investigate, pursue and prosecute companies, think tanks and other organizations that say there is little credible evidence that human “greenhouse gas” emissions are causing “dangerous” or “catastrophic” manmade climate change.

The AGs said their targets’ actions constitute “fraud” – which they described as using “polished public relations campaigns” to “muddle the truth,” “discredit prevailing climate science,” and “mislead” people about threats from higher temperatures, rising seas, floods and more severe weather. Their real goal is to intimidate and silence targeted groups, and bankrupt them with legal fees, court costs and lost funding.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, ExxonMobil and other “climate denier” organizations fought back vigorously, refusing to surrender their constitutional rights to participate in this vital public policy debate. The AGs’ bravado and prosecutions began fraying at the edges.

But one wonders: How will these intrepid protectors of the public interest respond to Real Climate Fraud? To intentional misrepresentations of material facts, with knowledge of their falsity, and for the purpose of inducing persons or institutions to act, with resulting injury or damage.

Will those AGs – or other state AGs, Congress, state legislatures or the Justice Department – investigate the growing list of highly questionable actions by scientists and others who receive billions in taxpayer and consumer funds for renewable energy programs and research into manmade climate cataclysm scares … to justify policies, laws and regulations that raise energy costs, destroy fossil fuel companies and jobs, force layoffs in other industries, and harm poor, minority and working class families?

Or will they respond the way FBI Director Comey did to Hillary Clinton’s reckless disregard for national security secrets: ignore the bad conduct, and reward transgressors with more money, prestige and power?

The case for widespread misconduct by members of the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Change & Renewable Energy Complex grows more compelling, and disturbing, by the day. A complete listing and analysis would require books, but these few examples underscore the seriousness of the global problem.

Crisis fabrication. After warming 1910-1940, cooling 1940-1975, warming 1975-1998, not budging 1998-2015, Earth warmed slightly 2015-2016 amid a strong El Niño. No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a record 10-1/2 years. Seas are rising at 7 inches per century. Arctic ice is near normal; Antarctic ice is at a record high. There are more polar bears than ever.

But the White House, EPA, UN and media falsely claim we face an unprecedented crisis – and must quickly replace reliable, affordable hydrocarbons with expensive, subsidized, unreliable renewable energy, and let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats control our lives, livelihoods and living standards.

Data manipulation. When actual measurements don’t support climate chaos claims, dishonest scientists “homogenize” and manipulate them to create imaginary warming trends. Phil Jones, his British team and their US counterparts eliminated centuries of Little Ice Age cooling and created new records showing planetary temperatures suddenly spiking in recent decades. They used ClimateGate emails to devise devious schemes preventing outside analysts from examining their data, computer algorithms and methodologies – and then “lost” information that peer reviewers wanted to examine.

NOAA’s clever climate consortium adjusted accurate sea-surface temperature data from scientific ocean buoys upward by a quarter-degree, to “homogenize” them with records from engine intake systems contaminated by shipboard heat – thereby creating a previously undetected warming trend.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology revised Rutherglen weather station data to convert 100 years of data showing a slight cooling trend into a warming of several degrees per century. As with other “adjustments” (by NASA, for instance) the revisions always create warming trends – never a slight cooling – and climate crisis scientists always say humans caused the warming, even though they are unable to separate natural forces, cycles and fluctuations from alleged human influences.

GIGO computer models. Climate models assume post-1975 warming is due to manmade carbon dioxide; exaggerate climate sensitivity to CO2 levels; and simplify or ignore vital natural forces like solar energy variations, cosmic ray fluxes, heat-reflecting clouds, and recurrent phenomena like El Niño and La Niña. They conjure up “scenarios” that alarmists treat as valid predictions of what will happen if we don’t slash fossil fuel use. Models replace actual evidence, and play an important role in climate battles.

It’s complete GIGO: faulty assumptions, data, algorithms, analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out. That’s why “hockey stick” and other models are so out of touch with reality. In fact, an official IPCC graph showed that every UN climate model between 1990 and 2012 predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 F) higher than they actually were! The inconvenient graph was revised for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 report.

Report manipulation. Activists and bureaucrats always finalize the Summary for Policymakers, the only IPCC climate document that most voters, elected officials and journalists ever read. They want to ensure that already politicized climate “science” does not undermine or contradict political themes and agendas.

A 1995 State Department document reveals the extent of this interference and manipulation. The 30-page document gave detailed instructions as to how the Clinton White House wanted the summary’s scientific explanations and conclusions revised, to make alleged climate and weather trends even more worrisome. Donna Laframboise and others document the bias, distortion and deception that dominate IPCC actions.

Consensus fabrication. Claims of a 97% consensus on climate cataclysm science are likewise slippery, and based on bait-and-switch tactics that look only at study abstracts of studies and then misrepresent what the abstracts say, ask one question but base their conclusions on a different one, or use other strategies and misrepresentations to hide the disagreements and debates that still dominate this topic.

Cost-benefit falsification. The US Government has mastered this fraudulent tactic, especially in its “social cost of carbon” calculations. EPA and other agencies blame methane and carbon dioxide emissions for every conceivable impact on agriculture, forests, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, too much or too little rain. They totally ignore the way more CO2 makes plants grow faster and better, with less water.

They also ignore the enormous benefits of fossil fuels for 80% of all the energy we use to transport people and products, generate reliable, affordable electricity, and manufacture fertilizers, plastics and thousands of other products. And they ignore the ways anti-energy regulations raise hospital, factory and small business costs, kill jobs, and reduce living standards, health and welfare for millions of people.

Why would they do these things? The US federal government alone spent $11.6 billion on “green” energy and climate “research” and “mitigation” programs in 2014. That money did not go to scientists who question “dangerous manmade climate change” doctrines.

Recipients and their parent institutions are determined to preserve this funding, protect their reputations and prestige, and maintain their influence and control over policies, laws, regulations, and wind, solar and biofuel mandates and subsidies. It is all inextricably tied to silencing inconvenient questions and, if needs be, engaging in systematic and systemic exaggeration, falsification and misrepresentation.

So, AGs, by all means let’s investigate. But let’s not criminalize differences of opinion. Let’s root out actual fraud, let real science prevail, and protect our livelihoods and living standards from unscrupulous people and organizations that are using fraudulent climate chaos claims to control energy use, transform the US and global economic systems, and redistribute the world’s wealth.

 

 

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #31 
If Hammond thinks Allred's letter was hard to follow, his was disjointed and I gave up half way through.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #32 

When the Global Warmists drag out the old "precautionary principle" to justify their proposals to spend billions of dollars to combat global warming, it is a sign that they are losing the argument.

The "precautionary principle" states that even if we have not satisfactorily proven the man-made global warming theory, the disasters from man-made global warming would be so catastrophic that we should take all precautions to prevent global warming from occurring.

In a recent Gazette Article titled "Political climate change?" the author dredges up the old precautionary principle by stating ....
"Some would argue this steady rise in CO2, and concomitant atmospheric warming, is a natural phenomenon not caused by burning fossil fuels. Does it really matter what the cause is? As a concerned citizen, I recognize that if there is a reasonable prospect of disaster, one’s best bet is to prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and do what it takes to mitigate the causes. Is it worthwhile taking seriously that Earth’s living zone temperature may rise five degrees Celsius over the next century or so, whatever the cause? On the way to a five degree rise, there will be side effects, including: sea-level will rise significantly as seawater warms and ice caps melt; methane, a greenhouse gas more powerful than CO2, will be released from permafrost; glacier-fed rivers arising in the mountains in western Alberta and elsewhere could become seasonal. Should we wait and see what will happen? Does the greater risk lie in letting things ride or in taking action?"

So let's take a moment and analyze this statement.

Statement .... "Some would argue this steady rise in CO2, and concomitant atmospheric warming.........." Reality ... the real world data shows that CO2 cannot be the cause of global warming since historically the increase in CO2 occurs AFTER the global warming has occurred. So in fact there is no causative relationship between CO2 and global temperature in the real world.

Statement ..... "Does it really matter what the cause is?" Reality ..... Assuming there has been a mild increase in global temperature over the past century, it obviously matters as to what the cause is. If it is not caused by CO2 then obviously all these programs to try to end the use of hydrocarbons is pure bunk. If your car is hesitating because of timing chain problems .... you won't solve that hesitation in the motor by changing the tires.

Finally the author blithely, without any actual proof, glides into the assertion that we are moving to a five degree rise in temperature and then invokes the precautionary principle. That is, he argues that it is better that we take precautions to prevent this global warming than do nothing because of the risk that our world may come to an end.

Since he has never established that global warming (never mind a five degree increase) is even occurring through man's activities, the call for precaution is completely without basis. After all, if some politician said we may be subject to an attack from outer space aliens and therefore we should divert all the money from medicare into developing advanced weapons to defend from this martian invasion, he would be told there is no evidence of a martian invasion. If he said .... yes but it could happen so be better take the precaution and dump all our medicare monies into weaponry, he would be laughed out of office. Unfortunately, when the global warming alarmists adopt the same precautionary principle, half the population take them seriously.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #33 

The more things change the more they remain the same. 

Here is a description of religious belief in the Middle Ages.  [see http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-religion/]

“During the Middle Ages religion was everything.  It was not unusual for people to go to church every day and pray five times a day.  People believed that all the good things in life were due to the bounty of god and that the evil events of the times were due to their sins.  Medieval religion was extremely important and even the doctors and physicians of the era were also well versed in religion.  From birth to death, whether you were a peasant, a serf, a noble, a lord, or a king – life was dominated by the church and Medieval religion. There were many famous Medieval Saints and there are details of the names of these pious men and women of the Middle Ages.”

 

With slight modifications, it captures the spirit of the 21st. Century.

During the 21st century belief in global warming was everything.  It was not unusual for people in the 21st century to contemplate global warming 5 times a day.  People believed that all good things in life came from the government and that the evil events were due to capitalism causing global warming.  Global Warming ideology was extremely important and even the scientists and teachers of the era were also well versed in the global warming ideology.  From birth to death, whether you were a government bureaucrat, middle class, or an entrepreneur – life was dominated by the religious belief in the global warming ideology.  There were many famous Global Warming celebrities and the details of the names of these religious zealots include Al Gore and David Suzuki.

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #34 
Good old Rex gets it!

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-curb-your-climate-change-enthusiasm
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #35 
These climate change alarmists should be jailed. They expect us (sadly many do) to believe they can predict sea levels and world temperature increases??

The most advance computers can't even get the forecast right 10 days out!!

Conclusion

Given all of the factors that influence it, the weather is an undeniably complex process—and like any process, it can exhibit a lot of variation. However, if you’re going to make any big plans based on weather and you want to minimize the variation, the data we collected suggest it’s best to rely on the next-day forecast.

There is not much we can accurately predict 5 days into the future, so relatively speaking, the 5-day forecast comes a lot closer to doing that than most aspects of life. As for the 10-day forecast, it’s likely that meteorologists know exactly how unpredictable the weather conditions 10 days in the future can be. And they provide it to us weather-watchers nonetheless because we still want some sense of what the future holds, despite the unreliability of the predictions. But it’s good to know which forecasts we can really count on, and which come closer to fortune-telling!


https://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/

0
Contract

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #36 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Continuing_research

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/30/mcintyre-mission-obsessive-quest-disprove-michael-mann-hockey-stick
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #37 

As has now, unfortunately, become the custom, the global warming believers produce articles which are long on opinion but very short on logic applied to empirical evidence.  Such is the case with https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/30/mcintyre-mission-obsessive-quest-disprove-michael-mann-hockey-stick quoted in this thread by “Contract”. 

Aside fromdesmogblog being a known and rabid proponent of the global warming theory, the desmogblog article , while it attempts to besmirch the character of McIntyre, (the Canadian who exposed the flaws in the hockey stick graph) it provides no empirical evidence or rational arguments to prove that McIntyre’s theory is false.

 

A Brief Synopsis

One of the fundamental problems with the man-made global warming theory has been the Midieval Warming Period.  All the empirical evidence showed that it was warmer in the Middle Ages than it was in the early 20th. Century. (hence Greenland was so called because you could garden there in the Middle Ages) This was a huge problem for the global warming crowd.  After all, how could you say that global warming is caused by industrial production of CO2 when there were no cars and no industrialization in the Middle Ages??? 

So in an email that was leaked (part of the “Climategate fiasco) one scientist wrote that they had to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period …. And Mann proceeded to do so with his “hockey stick” graph.  Mann’s graph showed no warming in the Middle Ages and that temperatures suddenly took a dramatic rise corresponding to western industrialization.  (hence the graph is called a hockey stick) 

The Canadian McIntyre showed that Mann’s research was flawed because: 

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

• The technique they over weighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".

 
So who is right … McIntyre or the Global Warming Crowd???  Well …. If Mann’s hockey stick were correct you would see

  • that by now (2016) the oceans would have risen 20 feet and Manhatten would be completely underwater …. Has that occurred?
  • That by now the temperature at the equator would be so hot to be unlivable … have you seen millions of people escaping North away from the equator?
  • That by now the entire Arctic Ice Cap would have melted …. Have you heard that being reported on CBC?

So if a “scientific theory” can’t predict future events accurately …. What does that say about the validity of the theory?  It says "it's bogus" but Mann's very graph was used to cause panic world wide and this motivated the politicians to devote billions of dollars to research on the "global warming problem."  Since the public schools dutifully regurgitated the global warming theory as "settled science" we now have a Premier and a PM in the process of spending billions more on preventing "climate change" while they destroy the economy. 

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #38 

In a Gazette letter to the Editor, Chris Nelson criticized the enviro-activists as hypocrites for protesting the construction of pipelines to ship Ft. Mac oil as "dirty oil" while they stay strangely silent about the 84,017 barrels of oil a day which is delivered from Saudi Arabia to Irving Oil refineries since the Saudis are notorious for their human rights violations.

In defending his constitutional right to protest, an enviro-activist Bob Lane, responds by saying "Apparently we are "getting grants" in order to enjoy the "moral high ground?” Give me a huge break! There may be some small government grants but most environmental funding comes from private donations by those who agree with us."

What seems to have been omitted from the discussion is the amount, and source of those private donations. The journalist Vivian Krause has pointed out that the Canadian environmental groups who are opposing the pipeline construction have received millions of dollars from American Foundations such as The Tide Foundation, Rockerfeller Brothers Fund, Hewlitt Foundation, The Oak Foundation and a host of other foundations funded by American billionaires. Ms. Krause states that since 1990 these Canadian environmental protest groups have received 425 million from these U.S. Foundations.

Ms. Krause's point is that the strategy of these American Foundations is to blockade the export of any oil from Fort McMurray to anywhere in the world. Since this action, if successful, would serve to give the American oil industry a tremendous advantage in their competition with Canadian Oil Companies, and since it would irreparably harm the Canadian economy, the embargo (although promoted as based on the high moral ground of environmentalism) is nothing more than blatant economic imperialism in its crassest format.

Ms. Krause's point would seem to knock these pipeline protesters off their shiny white steeds and transform them into plodding infantry unwittingly fighting the battles for American capitalism.

0
Galt

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 395
Reply with quote  #39 
Will someone from the Global Warming Crowd PLEASE tell us when this great event is to occur. I'm freezin' my butt right now and a bit of warming would do it good!
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #40 
This guy was part of the successful Australian campaign to cancel the carbon tax that destroyed their economy. Alberta's tax will do the same and everyone knows except Rachel Notley and her merry band of dummies.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #41 

In an article "Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold" James Varney investigates the possibilities of Climate Science taking a new direction under a Trump Administration.

"Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.

“I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.

“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.

“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.” "

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #42 

O.K. .... So now we have some NDP MLA named Shaye Anderson, who has a diploma in physical education, calling for the Wildrose to sack its electricity and renewables critic Dan McIntryre because he said (a) its not clear how much humans contribute to climate change and (b) that the science isn't settled.

Using the old name calling tactic as a substitute for rational argument, Anderson alleges that Dan McIntryre is a "climate change denying conspiracy theorist". Unfortunately, since this science topic has become so politicized, no one will be asking the "phys-ed guy" the critical question: "since all the data shows that CO2 increases occurs about 600 years AFTER global warming has occurred .... How can CO2 be said to CAUSE global warming???????"

When that question is asked of the Global Warming apologists, they invariably resort to one of three responses.

Response #1 They simply deflect the question by changing the topic from anthropogenic global warming to the environmental issue of clean air. In essence they argue that we need to reduce this colourless odorless plant producing gas because somehow that will remove polluting particulates from the atmosphere. (Unfortunately this deflection does not solve the causation problem that if event B occurs subsequent in time to event A ... B cannot be said to cause A.)

Response #2: The alternative response by the global warming apologist to this causation problem is to admit that there is no historical record of CO2 causing global warming but that if CO2 concentrations continue to expand it will reach a "tipping point" which will trigger out of control global warming. When asked to produce evidence of the "tipping point" theory, they resort to their computer models which they have programmed to create a tipping point. ( Unfortunately this is a classic case of employing the logical fallacy known as a circular argument ---- i.e. CO2 causes global warming because we created a computer model which says CO2 will cause global warming.)

Response #3: The other age old response is that 97% of all leading climatologists believe that CO2 causes global warming .... So it must be true. (Unfortunately, this argument is a classic case of employing the logical fallacy of "arguing from authority". That is, simply because 100% of the College of Cardinals say they believe in the existence of God ... Does not prove that God exists)

So, in essence, when the Global Warming apologist is asked for actual proof that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming they can't show causation which is the very foundation upon which our Western Science is based. Unfortunately, in this post-truth age none of our politicians will confront the logical fallacies pedaled by the Global Warming crowd because they know that with all the Global Warming propaganda pumped out by the Media ... There are too many votes to be lost.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #43 
So here is a graph showing the difference between satellite temperatures and weather station temperatures.  . Although the satellite temperatures are considered more accurate,NASA has a different data source from the satellites, namely the network of surface weather stations whose data can be "adjusted" and "homogenized" to get essentially whatever answer NASA wants in support of its favored political narrative.   Isn't it strange that the satellite data shows basically no global warming trend from 1998 to 2016. 


[image]
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #44 
So here is a thought on this topic for consideration.

"Bias, ignorance and reality in climate science

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/bias-ignorance-and-reality-in-climate-science/

"If the “science was settled,” hundreds of millions of dollars would no longer be spent on trying to understand the various factors that influence climate and trying to build better climate models. Two hundred years ago, many medical doctors thought you could improve a patient by bleeding him or her. Many needlessly died as a result — including perhaps George Washington. The economy is now being unnecessarily bled by the environmental “doctors” who fail to admit their own ignorance.

0
Joyce

Member
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #45 
If the 'science doctors' admit they're wrong they loose their meal ticket. Government doesn't want to see that many on the unemployment line.

If we aren't fighting about the environment we just might get a view of some of the things the government doesn't want us to know.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #46 

While the Gazette continues to preach the global warmist gospel  [See Environment File  Saturday Jan 21, 2017] by suggesting 2016 was the “hottest year in recorded history”  (when in fact there were years in the 1930’s which were both hotter and drier)  one of the planet’s top climate change experts says the world will start cooling down in 2017.  (see:  http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/ Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down)

Dr David Evans says “There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. .... Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.”

Secondly, he says “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.

"As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars a day worldwide, wasted."

 Isn't it funny how we never hear the other side of the debate from The Gazette.

 

0
Contract

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #47 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

http://https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-on-record.htm

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #48 
Contract:  After you have read the global warming alarmists articles paid for by government grants promoting the global warming mantra ... check out the following.....

Zerohedge.com posts an article titled ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data .... Which states"

"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015."

See: Http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat

Additionally DailyCaller News Foundation writes"
"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year "pause" in global warming: They "adjusted" the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record."
.......
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
......
To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data "had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference." They added that the "buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C."
See: BREAKING: NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming 'Hiatus'... dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus

And the world famous website WattsupwithThat headlines:
NOAA/NCDC's new 'pause-buster' paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data .... See: See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #49 

Alberta announces $36M rebate program for solar panels on homes, businesses

http://globalnews.ca/news/3276407/alberta-announces-36m-rebate-program-for-solar-panels-on-homes-businesses/

A friend on another forum responded to this story thusly and I thought it worth a read: 

According to this 6 year old 2011 Statscan page, 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil55c-eng.htm

there were 883,265 detached houses, 46,590 mobile dwellings (mobile homes, houseboats, railroad cars), and 402,215 classified as "other" in Alberta in 2011. "Other" includes "semi-detached house, row house, apartment or flat in a duplex, apartment in a building that has fewer than five storeys and other single-attached house". Most of these would be able to take advantage of this program. Let's call it 75%, on the conservative side.

So, 883,265 + 46,590 + (.75 X 402,215) = 1,231,516 houses in Alberta. Now, for the mathematically challenged among you, that means that Shannon's glorious target is to equip less than one percent of Alberta's homes with solar heating.

Recall that this is the medium term target, not how many houses are currently equipped.

Another stunning Prog achievement. Thing is, this publicity stunt will be enough to buy thousands of uniformed Progs' votes. They won't bother doing the math nor care that their own tax dollars are paying for it.

$36,000,000 that won't affect 99% of the people. Great return on the investment.

If this product was truly viable more people than that would be out purchasing it on their own, sans the subsidy.

Pretty much sums up the NDP effort for me.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #50 
Of course, the hard core research establishes that a few people in Alberta installing solar panels will have absolutely no effect on global warming even if the global warming alarmists assumptions are assumed true.  

This is a typical left-wing program.  (1) Invent a crisis (global warming)  (2) spread the propaganda that the Government can solve this crisis  (3) Invent a new tax scheme to pay for the Government's proclaimed solution to the problem (carbon tax)  (4) Extract the money from the taxpayer (5) Develop a grand patronage system to attract votes (solar panel scheme) (6) Spend the taxpayers money on a scheme that won't solve the so called problem but will get you votes.

If you don't believe the foregoing, ask yourself this question ... Did President Johnsons grand scheme to end poverty actually do anything to end poverty in the USA?  It seems to me there are more poor people in the US than there ever was.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.