Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by radioprius1, Dec 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. firebatt

    firebatt Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    14
    4
    0
    Location:
    Twain Harte,CA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Anthropogenic or not? Not! It's Anthropocentric. It is political power and money grabbing on a blatantly grand scale. As they say follow the money. Big, Really BIG $$ here to be made by the traders of your tax $$. These AGW alarmists are swallowing the propaganda, eyes, noses and minds closed.

    Don't forget it was ENRON that invented Carbon Credits. Three Brits were just indicted for a huge Carbon Credit scam. What's your carbon footprint?

    As i wrote in another thread (until I was asked to go the the Pancake House for my political rant) mankind is arrogantly ignorant to think they can control the climate or weather. What was the temp of the earth when the dinosaurs were the dominate species? At one time, before homo sapiens appeared, the Sahara was tropical. The Earth has always been in constant change. Man is fearful of change. That's about it!

    Solar cycles, earth's orbit, deep ocean currents, volcanic activity and cloud formations are among the phenomena that regulate the weather and climate. Not cow flatulence.

    Wheather or not the Earth is warming or cooling, thankfully political man has very little control over Mother Nature. The Earth is a living cell that is breathing warm and cool at this period in it's 4.5 billion year history. This present phenomena is what gave birth to and allows man to exist for his relatively short stay here.

    At what temperature will you set the Earth's thermostat with your carbon credits?

    What do you AWG Prius owners think of Thorium Power Plants? No carbon credits needed.

    Oh! by the way Great photos of the weather stations. Scientists are just people, sentient beings. They are factually fallible and emotionally fragile just like every human. Too long again? Where are my mudflaps?
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Politburo

    Politburo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    971
    207
    0
    Vehicle:
    2009 Prius
    The Enron myth again? That has been debunked over and over. The concept of emissions trading was first analyzed in the 60s.

    The idea that we cannot affect nature is silly. We already know that man's actions are on a scale that can have adverse effects. cf acid rain, ozone layer, rivers catching fire, hermaphrodite fish. It shouldn't even be a question that dumping billions of tons of material into the atmosphere might have adverse consequences.

    I personally support additional nuclear development, as it's a relatively clean technology that is ready today, though the waste issue is the elephant in the room. Others on this site do as well. Prius owners are not some monolithic bloc that conforms to the stereotype in your head.
     
  3. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    I agree about nuclear power. I'm all for it.
     
  4. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Dr. Spencer has another article up:

    Spencer: Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000 Watts Up With That?
    or
    Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000 Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    Titled "Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000"

    Unfortunately, as ClimateGate revealed, scientific malpractice is more common than not in the realm of climatology.

    Great article. Give it a read!
     
  5. drees

    drees Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    1,778
    245
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Nothing new there. Clouds have always dominated climate, and additionally have a large amount of uncertainty attached to them since they can both reflect and trap heat.

    Definitely more research needs to be done to see how our actions will affect cloud cover, and how that cloud cover will affect climate.
     
  6. Lewie

    Lewie Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    89
    18
    0
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Misleading and biased statement here (with all due respect)! Typical of the pro AGW propaganda that assumes facts not in evidence. Sort of like, "How are you going to change your actions to stop the polar bear babies from drowning?" Where's the proof that they're drowning?

    Couldn't it be phrased something like, "We need to better understand the physics of cloud cover and its relationship to climate"?
     
  7. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Wait, what do you mean "how our actions affect cloud cover"? What you meant to say was "how the clouds affect climate." Talk about your misleading statements!
     
  8. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I believe his statement is absolutely clear to any who can read :
    "Definitely more research needs to be done to see how our actions will affect cloud cover"

    Couldn't be clearer. It is just that you wish to believe that humans can't possibly have an effect on much of anything that has to do with the environment.
     
  9. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
  10. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Drees also believed that we would still be in the middle of a Little Ice Age if it were not for human intervention. See the post here. I'm not surprised he believes that humans are changing cloud cover, etc.

    The thing I don't understand is whether or not pro-AGWers purposefully spread this BS. I wonder if drees sincerely believes that we need to "understand how humans influence the cloud cover" or if he purposefully spins things to make it look like everything is human influenced.

    After reading that lengthy ClimateGate dossier I have mixed feelings about their intents. They knowingly conspired to hide their data and methods - the antithesis of science. Any dissenting paper resulted in huge smear campaigns by the ClimateGate team and if you published a paper pointing out all of their gaping flaws they wanted to file libel law suits against you. What were they hiding? I believe that they knew their methods were crappy and that their results were dubious. A real scientist would openly share their data in hopes of better understanding the world. The ClimateGate team was merely interested in spreading the message. They had the results they needed, they just needed to modify the data to fit it.

    And boy have they gone down in flames. I am anxiously awaiting to see how this pans out.
     
  11. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    ABC news station WHTM-TV in Harrisburg did a fair-and-balanced story about the Commonwealth Foundation’s call for an outside, independent investigation of Penn State’s Climategate scientist, Michael Mann.

    Here’s the video news report:



    OMG I want that Mann hockey stick prop!

    From what I understand, the TV station shown covers perhaps the largest concentration of Penn State fans/alums, who are in the Harrisburg area. Of course Harrisburg is also the PA capital city, so the legislator who is head of the Education Committee is also shown. He has already sent word to Penn State that if a satisfactory review is not made, the legislators may take action.

    This must be rather disheartening to the alarmists who have perpetuated the lie that "there is nothing to see here." It's easy to believe a lie if you don't read the facts. It's easy to believe the lie if you only get your data from RealClimate (you know, the site that is implicated in and run by the people featured in the ClimateGate scandal...)
     
  12. ufourya

    ufourya We the People

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    1,258
    333
    42
    Location:
    Texas
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius c
    Model:
    Two
    You certainly weren't attributing dominance to clouds a few months ago!

    My, how the stories are changing now that the CO2 fraudsters have been exposed.
     
  13. firebatt

    firebatt Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    14
    4
    0
    Location:
    Twain Harte,CA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Thank You Politburo for responding.
    ENRON-"Too Big To Fail"
    "Enron myth debunked"? By whom and when? What is the Enron myth you're referring to Politburo? "Emissions trading first analyzed in the 60's" Who was emissions trading in the 60's? What was analyzed?

    Fact: Enron (largest bankruptcy in history) owed part of it's early success to emissions trading. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market and became the major trader in the EPA's $20 billion per yr. sulphur dioxide cap & trade (tax) program to combat another myth- Acid Rain is BS-Bad Science. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron's stock to rapidly rise. About 20 yrs. ago Enron was a billion $ a day commodity trader in natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth and whatever else; future carbon trading? It was next.

    "The Climate Change Industry" (sic) created by al gore and Enron "has now emerged as the worlds largest industry, when you include all the paid-for-scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and most importantly the multinationals.... Every person in the developed world feels the bite of this industry" with the increased costs of goods & services. Quotes from Lawrence Solomon:Enron's Other Secret

    The AGW sheeple like to say they are opposed to big corporate interests. The energy companies are trying to continue to provide energy to customers. The financial parasites (cap & tax) big corporate commodity traders are attempting to create $$ opportunity for themselves and provide nothing to anyone in return. Between 1994 and 1996 Enron donated $2.5 million to environmental groups seeking international controls on CO2. Kyoto Protocol- Wikipedia

    Kyoto Conspiracy Conference-1997 Enron was there to advise the Clinton administration what to do. ibid

    Also google Cato Institute "Why Enron Wants Global Warming"

    So Politburo do you accept AGW as a hoax?

    Political control of the environment is dangerous. Politicians are very poor stewards. What is your favorite federal program? What Federal program has ever been successful? Sucess as measured by very little wasteful spending and good stewardship.

    As for the elephant that is nuclear wasting in the room; Thorium Nuclear Reactors promise a huge reduction in waste when compared to uranium. The fuel cycle is much more proliferation resistant and at a lower cost. And Thorium is much more plentiful than Uranium. Uranium was chosen over Thorium for the first reactors precisely to provide weapon grade material. Google "Energy from Thorium" for more info.

    I too am a Prius owner mainly because I'm a monolithic cheapskate. BTW What is the stereotype in your head that you are putting in my head re: Prius owners?

    I will close before I lose your attention. It's past my bedtime too. Tomorrow I will try to answer your statements re: sexy fish, burning water, O3, and SO3 acid rain. Oh Wait! A lot said about clouds on this thread since I mentioned clouds in my last post; or is it just a coincidence. Go to You Tube "Cloud Mystery" Interesting.
     
  14. drees

    drees Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    1,778
    245
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    The media has seemed to forgotten that while it has been colder in the lower latitudes recently, there has also been record warm temperatures in Greenland and the Arctic Ocean thanks to the unprecedented negativity of the Arctic Oscillation. It is very likely that those temperatures have basically cancelled each other out as global temperatures do not change rapidly. If one area gets unusually cold, another area will be unusually warm. Weather != climate - not sure how many times I have to repeat that around here, but I'll continue to do so as needed.

    Wow, you still misread my statement. Even after referring to it multiple times in a vain attempt to discredit me. Stop fighting the straw man!

    I think my statement was clear - human actions affect the Earth. We should do more to better identify those effects. Are you still saying that there is no way we humans can affect the Earth's climate?
     
  15. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    I thought you might enjoy this ClimateGate email:

    Mick Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to Mike Hulme and Tim O’Riordan:

    Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.

    ClimateGate has taught me that the field of climatology is full of the biggest hypocrites and the most dishonest people. They accuse all skeptics of being "in the pocket of big oil", but they themselves are funded by them as well. They claim that skeptics arguments are BS because they aren't peer-reviewed, but they control the peer-review process which makes it very difficult to get a paper published! If a paper is published, they threaten libel lawsuits. It's the biggest, most anti-scientific thing ever.

    EDIT: Just in case someone doesn't know, "remit" means payment.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    The prediction was by one of the IPCC authors. :) I'm sure he'd love to hear from you about weather vs climate. I love the very tired weather vs climate you alarmists put forth. It's always the same: "If it helps global warming it's climate. If it hurts global warming it's weather."

    The IPCC scientist even pulled the same crap. He said we could expect 30 years of cooling, but not to be mislead, because that will simply be "masking the affects of global warming." LOL.

    Misquote my butt :) Let's look at your posts in order from that thread:


    Your post:
    My post:
    Your post:
    .... but I've learned a buttload since then too. If you've been reading since then I'm sure you have too. It sounds like you're no longer blaming CO2 for everything eh? Are you becoming a "lukewarmer"? (I'd consider myself a lukewarmer, not a "denier.")

    (Lukewarmer = someone who thinks CO2 contributes, but only a very minimal amount)
     
  17. Politburo

    Politburo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    971
    207
    0
    Vehicle:
    2009 Prius
    By me, here, several times. The predecessor to the EPA looked at emissions trading in 1967. It's a basic fact that the idea was not conceived by Enron. Google "Burton, Ellison, and William Sanjour".
     
  18. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    154
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    I expect to see a lot of this in the coming months. I just wish people weren't too proud to admit they were wrong.

    To the alarmists:

    It's ok to admit you were wrong! The ClimateGate fraudsters were very convincing. Our whole lives we've been brought up to believe that we should trust scientists because they are noble and are always seeking the truth. ClimateGate unequivocally demonstrated that this is not the case (at least as far as climate science goes.)

    Your whole life you were told to accept whatever is in scientific journals. I was too. In medicine, I take calculated risks that can either save someone or kill them, and this is all based on what I read in the medical scientific journals. Sadly, we found that the peer-reviewed journals mean nothing in climate science.

    We found that in ClimateGate the leading scientists were peer-reviewing each others papers. We found that their peer-review process was merely reading over the paper and looking for glaring errors and making sure the global warming message was at the very least overstated. Methodologies and data were never checked. When someone wanted to check their methods and data the ClimateGate team refused to give out any of their data. This is the exact opposite way that science is supposed to work. If you are on the cutting edge of your field and publishing work that is supposed to influence the world, then you *HAVE* to share your data and methods. You have to be checked!

    In ClimateGate we can see the criminals conspiring to hide their data. You can see them conspiring to delete the data, and delete information that has been requested in Freedom Of Information Acts (FOIA) BTW - since the data was request-able under a FOIA, that means it was government funded, which means YOUR tax dollars funded this! Many Millions and millions of tax dollars went to these people and all they did was shoddy science and waste your money.

    Also in ClimateGate we see the criminals being bullies. We see them (literally) pushing their ideologies on the scientific community. In the emails they clearly say that they don't want anyone who doesn't support global warming to be published. If a journal published a single (literally) skeptical paper then the entire ClimateGate criminal team would conspire to get the editor fired and try to blackball the journal. One paper was published that criticized one of the ClimateGate teams papers and the entire team got together and wanted to file a libel lawsuit agains the scientists.

    That is as unscientific as it gets!

    If you think I'm making any of this up, or exaggerating it, just read this:

    Climategate—analysis by John P. Costella, Ph.D.

    It is a great list of the ClimateGate emails, explained, with links to the originals. If you think anything is taken out of context you are free to read the original email and see what you think.

    It's insanity.
     
  19. priushippie

    priushippie New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    330
    41
    0
    Location:
    Pennsyltucky
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Now that you have convinced me that Earth is warming (LOL) I was wondering why all the glaciers in the warming world are retreating and huge pieces of the ice cap are breaking off?
     
  20. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    969
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Hot air from the mouths of deniests!

    It is interesting, that after 100 post, 10 pages, these deniests have come up with virtually nothing except the same repeated drivel. Most folks have now recognized how our local denial community made up of three prominent members have spend a couple of weeks and 100 post yelling at themselves.

    The bulk of those of us on the right side of history have figured out it is not worth our time and energy to even bother to counter the daily rash of misinformation put forth by these folks. Some of us have better things to do, and indeed are working within our daily lives to help with concrete solutions for some of the problems facing the planet, unlike the denial camp who never seem to do much of anything unless it serves their own narrow self interest. (Usually because they don't like (in no particular order) taxes, government, big government, socialism, environmental regulation, social justice, land use regulation, Obama, health care, any government, democrats, commies, Europeans, perceived "loss of freedoms" etc, etc).

    So I propose, we give the deniests the thread. They can prattle all they wish. We won't bother them on their tirade, as long as they don't both us when we contribute to threads with genuine concern for the environment. That way they don't have to name call, and we don't feel compelled to counter all their misinformation because it will be a given. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.