Paladin77 Paladin77

Global warming LIES

▼

Global warming LIES

buy blankets

from JoeUser Forums

Smoothseas provided a link to Frontline to prove his point on Global warming. This is what I found.

Okay all you people that want to destroy nations to save the Earth read this!

I have a copy of the real IPCC report on Global Climate Change. I will quote from it when needed. I also have a report from Frontline a PBS television propaganda network. I will quote from them as well seeing as some people here think that they tell us the truth.

Starting with Frontline;

FRONTLINE correspondent Deborah Amos reports:

In February 2007, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the science on global warming is "unequivocal" and asserted with 90 percent confidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from human activities, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, have been the main cause.

The IPCC Report:

It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650 kyr. Ice core data indicate that CO2 varied within a range of 180 to 300 ppm and CH4 within 320 to 790 ppb over this period. Over the same period, antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle.

• It is very likely that glacial-interglacial CO2 variations have strongly amplified climate variations, but it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations.

• It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present. This is the case both for climate states over millions of years (e.g., in the Pliocene, about 5 to 3 Ma) and for warm events lasting a few hundred thousand years (i.e., the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 Ma). In each of these two cases, warming was likely strongly amplified at high northern latitudes relative to lower latitudes.

My words;

If you notice the report itself says there is "close agreement" not a consensus. The word "likely" is used not definitely, it is not stated as fact but as a guess. You have now read a part if the IPCC report the same as the reporter. Does this read as unequivocal to you? Does it sound like they have 90% certainty that anything will happen? If you go to the report you will see that I change none of the wording the word "likely" was italicized by the authors not by me. This was done to stress that it is not fact, it is not a consensus, and it is not a certainty, it could happen, and is likely to happen if everything in their model is accurate and correct. The fact that they use at least 5 different models just to get them up to a level of likely is more than suspect, and to say anything more definite than “likely” would be non-scientific. You see this is the actual report not the hype from people that desire to ruin the world. There in no scientific conclusion, it is the conclusion of the reporter that we are told.

Keep this in mind, the best computers used to model the weather today can’t predict with any certainty more than four days in advance, yet we are to believe that the five or more models used to predict the weather 100 years from now is accurate.

The IPCC Report:

All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated radiative forcing. There is close agreement of globally averaged SAT multi-model mean warming for the early 21st century for concentrations derived from the three non-mitigated IPCC

Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES: B1, A1B and

A2) scenarios (including only anthropogenic forcing) run by the AOGCMs (warming averaged for 2011 to 2030 compared to 1980 to 1999 is between +0.64°C and +0.69°C, with a range of only 0.05°C).

My words;

Yes, you read correctly. The big warming that is going to kill us all is a grand total of 0.05°C by 2030, and for the kicker that is the part that is caused by man if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. So if we do stop burning all fossil fuels right this minute we will be 0.05°C cooler in the year 2030. WOW global warming is killing us and we didn’t even know it. Five one-thousandths of a degree, and to get us that cool all we have to do is stop burning all fossil fuels world wide. Get rid of cars, buss trains and air planes, walk to work, don’t use coal fired power plants, or oil fueled power plants. In short we have to go back to 1500’s but not burn anything for heat or light. Is that worth being 0.05°C cooler?

This is from LiveScience.com, and it also is from a couple of months ago;

" hasn’t warmed as much over the last century as climate models had originally predicted, a new study finds.  Climate change's effects on are of particular interest because of the substantial amount of water locked up in its ice sheets. Should that water begin to melt, sea levels around the globe could rise and inundate low-lying coastal areas."

"The new study, detailed in the April 5 2008 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations. ... Information about 's harsh weather patterns has traditionally been limited, but temperature records from ice cores and ground weather stations have recently been constructed, giving scientists the missing information they needed."

"This is a really important exercise for these climate models," said study leader Andrew Monaghan of the for Atmospheric Research in .  

“Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C),"

"This is showing us that, over the past century, most of has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said.  It hasn't affected the rest of the globe, either.  "The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. 

My Words;

Well wait a minute those are the same estimates used to model our weather 100 years from now! Seeing as they are off by a full degree could it mean that instead of 0.05C it will really only go up 0.00005C because of man?

My point is that we should wait to get all the facts in, assess those facts and then make a plan to do something if we are able to do anything. 30 years ago they wanted to melt the ice caps to protect the world from the next ice age. Now they want to save the ice caps to protect us from droning, and heat stroke.

Is the planet getting hotter? Yes, it is. Is man the reason the planet is getting hotter. Not according to the IPCC or any published reports from credible scientists. What has happened with the IPCC report is that people read it and tell you what it means. This is why I posted excerpts for you to read yourself. The fact the that the IPCC has had to publicly admit that the Earth has been in a 10 year cooling period NASA has published that the ten hottest years in the last century were in the 20’s the 30’s. Oh yeah and the melting ice that we are supposed to fear. It seems that the ice in the last two years had come back to where it was before the panic started and is getting thicker.

Notice that the temp has been a lot cooler this summer? I live in and it seems that way to me. No science to back it up just what I have noticed. It might be cooler only in my city and the rest of the state is suffering that 0.05C global warming. Hard to tell cause my thermometer does not register more that tenths of a degree.

31,086 views 38 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

but the conceipt that doing so will solve the global warming dilemma
End of quote

Nobody claims that it will....what is being claimed is that it may help slow the negative affects that are inevitable so that the problems it will cause will be more managable over a longer period of time

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

but the conceipt that doing so will solve the global warming dilemma
End of quote

The vast majority of science does not claim this....what is being suggested is that certain steps can likely slow down the problem so that some of the negative consequences will take longer to appear and make managing and planning for the changes easier and more economical to deal with.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

certain steps can likely slow down the problem so that some of the negative consequences will take longer to appear and make managing and planning for the changes easier and more economical to deal with
End of quote

I can live with small, economical steps, as long as they don't involve carbon-credit scams or Kyoto-like bureaucratic idiocy.  We also can't afford 'Woops, we didn't expect (insert unintended consequence here) to happen!'

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

carbon-credit scams or Kyoto-like bureaucratic idiocy
End of quote

Kyoto was a bad deal for the US in any case....One thing I do know is the free market will not solve this problem because OPEC controls the price of oil so there can be no free market. So you can take your pick....emission trading, carbon tax, or direct regulation.  There are already a few state and regional plans gearing up to start various initiatives which have already been put in place so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

It amazes me how people take information that is used to modify the models used for climate change science and try to explain it off as disproving something when it in fact it doesnt do that.
End of quote

 

Then it appears that you are easily amazed as well as self deluding. Allow me to point out why.

 

Incorrect. Almanacs used long term statistics to predict weather and were very inaccurate compared to todays standards......Now we use modelling.
End of quote

 

You have taken the context of my statement and twisted it to fit your religious views. To do this you are either intentionally misleading or self-deluded. The point was that the almanacs were the very best we had at the time and it worked for the most part. Today we can predict the weather for four days, three with any accuracy. This is with years of work on the models because I remember in the 60’s they would predict a sunny day and it would rain, or a rainy day and it would be sunny. Over time (40 years) they worked out the bugs to get close enough to get three solid days of good guesses. Now you go to the IPCC reports that span almost a decade and expect everyone to genuflects at the alter of guesses when not even their short term predictions are close to being accurate. Then extrapolate those guesses to cover a century and demand we do this or that to make changes to save the planet. If it took 40 years to get to the point where we can predict three or four days of weather how can we be sure we understand enough to deal with climate which is on cycles of 30 thousand years? When just 30 years ago we were told, by the same religious people that we had to warm up the planet to save us from freezing to death. The IPCC report failed to notice that during the modeling that we were going into a cooling trend. This was something that the other scientific disciplines knew and understood decades ago but were ignored by the religion of global climate change. Solar weather scientists saw it coming and when they had enough to publish they did and it contradicts what the IPCC report has been telling us. Look at the IPCC report as an almanac of the past. The first one. Just as inaccurate as the ones we used to plant crops, just as inaccurate as the weather predictions using modeling in the 60’s where they could not get one day in a row correct.

 

Incorrect again. We knew a lot about climate before the 70's. Not nearly as much as we know today particualarly in regards to climate change but if everyone prescribed to your brand of thinking we would know very little.
End of quote

 

Before the 1970’s we did not know that climate was more than weather. Before the 1990’s we did not know that the tectonic plates shifting caused the ice age that lasted millions of years. It was not until 1949 did we know about tectonic plates in the Earth and that they were still moving. So when you compare what we knew about climate before 1970 and what we know now we knew almost nothing. If everyone prescribed to your way of thinking we would have poured soot on all the ice caps of the planet 30 years ago, melted the ice caps and flooded most of the planet. Now you want us to try to monkey with the climate again with no understanding of how it works. By the way, you said we knew a lot about climate, care to share some of what we knew back then?

 

Of course its a guess. Scientific guesses do however tend to become more accurate over time. Take a look at peak oil production. There were guesses made 50 years ago that seem to be quite accurate. Not to say climate change theory will come close to that but I am sure over time it will become fairly accurate in its forecasts.
End of quote

 

I have a radical idea, let’s wait until we have a fairly accurate forecast, and then decide what we should do with the findings.

 

By your own admissions you say that it is a guess, and inaccurate guess. Based on that how can you say what direction we should take to solve a problem we are not sure we have, not sure we created, not sure we can stop no matter what we do? You are basing the survival of the race of human kind on four reports that lead to a hypothesis that you admit is inaccurate, not peer reviewed, never fully and fairly debated in the realm of science, and has no outside support from that discipline. All on the chance that if the report is right then we will all die in ten thousand years. I have news for you, in ten thousand years we who are reading this will all be dead, and I can bet money on that!

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

The point was that the almanacs were the very best we had at the time and it worked for the most part
End of quote

That is not the point you made...in fact you stated that almanacs had it down to a science. Almanacs simply took prior statistics and used them to predict the weather for the year... ie.   If on Sept 22 in the previous years it was sunny more than 50% of the time then the almanac would predict sunny for the year in which it was published. Rather simplistic way of forecasting.

we knew almost nothing
End of quote

We knew a lot less about climate change but in fa

I have a radical idea, let’s wait until we have a fairly accurate forecast, and then decide what we should do with the findings.
End of quote

Do you want to wait long enough so that you can see jesus can come save you?

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

we knew almost nothing
End of quote

We knew a lot less about climate change but in fact knew quite a bit about climate at that time.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

We knew a lot less about climate change but in fact knew quite a bit about climate at that time.
End of quote

No the correct answer is - we know that we know not.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is not the point you made...in fact you stated that almanacs had it down to a science. Almanacs simply took prior statistics and used them to predict the weather for the year... ie. If on Sept 22 in the previous years it was sunny more than 50% of the time then the almanac would predict sunny for the year in which it was published. Rather simplistic way of forecasting.
End of quote

 

 

And if you take what you just wrote about almanacs and substitute IPCC report you have the same thing. You have a science that is faulty but still works to some extent. Faulty data in both, both not doing well but the best we have at the time.

 

[quote]Do you want to wait long enough so that you can see jesus can come save you?[/quote]

 

Not at all but I would not mind that happening. Instead I would like to wait until the bugs are worked out of the modeling, the conclusions are consistent, a peer review of the entire report instead of cherry picking, and independent studies done to verify the reports. All the factors of climate change taken into account rather than ignoring the ones that don’t fit the models. You know, the basic scientific research that has yet to be done before a report or claim is accepted as a valid scientific theory. The theory of relativity is still going through this process and it was postulated in 1910, the theory of evolution is still going through this process. The supposition of man made global climate change is not going through this process, we are expected to accept it as fact and move on to the next stage. Why is this?

 

 

We knew a lot less about climate change but in fact knew quite a bit about climate at that time.
End of quote

 

 

Okay I will ask again. What did we know and when did we know it?

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

science that is faulty
End of quote

Imprecise.. not faulty

The supposition of man made global climate change is not going through this process, we are expected to accept it as fact
End of quote

No Science shows that it is likely and the models continue to be improved upon just as they are with other scientific theory.

 

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

No Science shows that it is likely
End of quote

No it doesn't.  There is a hypothesis that says it is likely.  There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, only for theory of climate change.  I hope you understand the difference.  A corrolation does not constitute evidence of cause & effect, BTW.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Frickin' edit button - WHEN will that get fixed, FGS?

Anyway, it's the theory of climate change. X|

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Imprecise.. not faulty
End of quote

 

The models were wrong, the models were skewed, the models had errors in them, and the IPCC report is based on the faulty models. Imprecise is being more than kind, faulty is an accurate description. According to the models if CO2 is the cause of man made global climate change there would be hot spots in the atmosphere. This is said by the person that wrote the model used to predict the climate change. Three years of searching no hot spots have been found. This also admitted by the man that wrote the model and searched for the hot spots. So if his model is correct and he believes it is then CO2 is not the cause of man made global climate change. Yet we are still being told a year after his findings has been released, that CO2 is the cause and man is at fault. The errors in other models have been found but not corrected just ignored. The predictions that the Earth will warm up by 1.67 degrees in the next ten years has been proven incorrect. The warming they are looking for in the arctic and Antarctic has not been found and the temperature rises predicted so far have not been seen or documented. The global climate change has not been proved even by a little bit.

 

You call these glaring errors imprecise, I call it faulty, misleading, and easily disproved by even rudimentary science. The conclusions of the four IPCC reports on global climate change are leaps of illogic that we are to blindly follow without any proof they will work. All they say is trust us this is what we need to do. I don’t trust the reports because I don’t see any facts to support them. If you have any proof I would be glad to see it and study it.

 

No Science shows that it is likely and the models continue to be improved upon just as they are with other scientific theory.
End of quote
 

“Likely” is not certainty. If the models continue to be improved then you admit the old models were wrong, if they were wrong to begin with then the conclusions are wrong. Thank you for admitting the crux of my argument is correct, they lied.