PDA

View Full Version : Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak




easycougar
12-08-2009, 01:56 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

BenIsForRon
12-08-2009, 02:02 PM
As it should be. There was a guy on NPR this morning, he believes in AGW, but he said this whole Copenhagen thing is a scam. It's going to be based solely on politics and economics. And of course, the big dogs are going to try to take more territory.

phill4paul
12-08-2009, 02:02 PM
Sinister.

dannno
12-08-2009, 02:08 PM
This is a great example of how the elite pretend to attempt to setup what they frame as a fair agreement between the well connected and the poor and then sidelining the entire process and turning it into a mechanism for the elite to become even more wealthy and of course give them much more control.


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2009/12/8/1260279533533/COP15-A-Haitian-delegatio-001.jpg

Anybody ever hear of the band "Guyana Punchline" ?? Great band.. terrible recording..

YouTube - guyana punch line (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5wFkDW8kAc)

dannno
12-08-2009, 02:10 PM
As it should be. There was a guy on NPR this morning, he believes in AGW, but he said this whole Copenhagen thing is a scam. It's going to be based solely on politics and economics. And of course, the big dogs are going to try to take more territory.

So why can't you admit to yourself that MMGW is a scam??

:confused:

BenIsForRon
12-08-2009, 02:14 PM
The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia. Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger. Oil for food was a great scam for governments to pretend like they were helping the less fortunate while at the same time gaining more wealth.

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

tangent4ronpaul
12-08-2009, 02:32 PM
absolutely delicious! :D

sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks!

I found this interesting...

Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

hmmm...
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders

the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent"

See where I'm going with this?

rounding - 14000 CO2 tons / 20000 ppl = 0.7 tons/person / 11 days = 0.06363 tons per person per day.

now developing world: 1.44 tons / 365 = 0.003045 tons per person per day
developed world: 2.67 dons / 365 = 0.007315 tons per person per day

This climate change conference sure has one MASSIVE carbon footprint!

So each person there is producing about 18 times the allowed developing world carbon allowance and about 9 times the developed world carbon allowance!

What incredible HYPOCRISY!

Oh, and the numbers get worse if you don't count the 5,000 reporters like I did.

-t

Krugerrand
12-08-2009, 02:33 PM
The part I don't get is why we can't assume that the "email hacker" was not simply a "whistle blower."

phill4paul
12-08-2009, 02:47 PM
So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

To each his own. For my own part when they can accurately predict the weather each day for a particular local for 365 days then I'll believe that they can see a larger picture 50 years from now. As it stands I can get three different predictions from three different sources and my weather "rock" is the only thing correct 100% of the time.

Cowlesy
12-08-2009, 02:50 PM
To me, the more sinister aspect of this means a re-jigger'ing of the agreement could lead to BHO actually signing something next week that still locks in a global framework on which to build.

Carole
12-08-2009, 03:02 PM
Yet again the medial warming era is forgotten/shoved aside/ ignored/hidden/marginalized.

Sounds like what they did to RP during the primaries. :)

I have no patience for those who follow the religion of AGW like sheeple. Sorry, this is just a complete tyrannical grab for world power to give our sovereignty to the World Bank and make us pay, and pay, and pay for our developmental sins.

Please wake up. CO2 is NOT a pollutant-not a greenhouse gas. The world NEEDS CO2. The trees and other plants need it to produce the O2 that we breathe.

The oceans and volcanoes produce nearly 100 percent of the world's CO2. Humans produce a miniscule fraction of CO2. Not even enough to think about. It cannot be "controlled" and the world is not warming. It is natural to have climate change. The CO2 is taken up during the "growing" period from Spring to Fall. Ask any farmer. The sun heats the earth. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who is now almost a billionaire by his scamming of global warming.

Polar bears are plentiful. Male bears often eat their own young if the mother does not protect them. They are not cannibalizing due to ice melt. Polar bears can swim for sixty miles. They like to lie on the ice. They will eat other mother polar bears' young also in order to drive them into heat again and reproduce again. This is all a natural cycle of nature.

I repeat global warming and AGW are scams.

idirtify
12-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Yet again the medial warming era is forgotten/shoved aside/ ignored/hidden/marginalized.

Sounds like what they did to RP during the primaries. :)

I have no patience for those who follow the religion of AGW like sheeple. Sorry, this is just a complete tyrannical grab for world power to give our sovereignty to the World Bank and make us pay, and pay, and pay for our developmental sins.

Please wake up. CO2 is NOT a pollutant-not a greenhouse gas. The world NEEDS CO2. The trees and other plants need it to produce the O2 that we breathe.

The oceans and volcanoes produce nearly 100 percent of the world's CO2. Humans produce a miniscule fraction of CO2. Not even enough to think about. It cannot be "controlled" and the world is not warming. It is natural to have climate change. The CO2 is taken up during the "growing" period from Spring to Fall. Ask any farmer. The sun heats the earth. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who is now almost a billionaire by his scamming of global warming.

Polar bears are plentiful. Male bears often eat their own young if the mother does not protect them. They are not cannibalizing due to ice melt. Polar bears can swim for sixty miles. They like to lie on the ice. They will eat other mother polar bears' young also in order to drive them into heat again and reproduce again. This is all a natural cycle of nature.

I repeat global warming and AGW are scams.

Yesterday on CNN a warmist was showing a color map of world CO2 emissions. All the industrial nations/areas had redder shades around them, which was claimed to be CO2 concentrations. Reading your post, I now wonder if it was really true and suspect it was just an infrared map of heat output.

BenIsForRon
12-08-2009, 03:32 PM
Yesterday on CNN a warmist was showing a color map of world CO2 emissions. All the industrial nations/areas had redder shades around them, which was claimed to be CO2 concentrations. Reading your post, I now wonder if it was really true and suspect it was just an infrared map of heat output.


Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available_files/droppedImage.jpg

Original_Intent
12-08-2009, 03:38 PM
The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia. Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger. Oil for food was a great scam for governments to pretend like they were helping the less fortunate while at the same time gaining more wealth.

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

The science is a scam. The vast majority of those that have signed on are not even scientists, they are U.N. shills who are not climate experts at all.

Far more real climatologists scientists have refuted MMGW than those that have supported it. It is just that the elite controlled media does their best to supress that. MMGW is going to be the "flat earth" theory of coming centuries.

tggroo7
12-08-2009, 03:58 PM
I'm confused. If the drafted agreement was going to "abandon the Kyoto Protocol" and "sideline the UN," wouldn't it have been a better thing than we had all thought?

purplechoe
12-08-2009, 04:20 PM
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID27803/images/globalwarming.jpg

dannno
12-08-2009, 04:27 PM
So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

Are you aware of the history of our climate from the last 1000 years? I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could look at the climate for the last 1,000 years and not see that what is happening today is completely normal. Medieval Warming period was warmer than it was today, from about 1000 AD to 1300 AD. Then we had a "little ice age" that just ended. Of course temperatures are coming up a little, we are coming out of a little ice age.

I don't know how people can believe that CO2, which plants LOVE, is a toxin. In fact, there are people who purchase CO2 and add extra amounts to their garden so that the plants grow better. This crap about toxicity is total BS, especially looking at the climate from the last 10 years. Temps have been falling. Obviously CO2 is NOT the main driver of temperatures in our climate. There is zero proof that it actually is.. Correlation does not equal causation!!

easycougar
12-08-2009, 04:46 PM
http://www.danzfamily.com/archives/blogphotos/07/759-al-gore-fire.jpg

Original_Intent
12-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available_files/droppedImage.jpg

OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

I had a boss that like to play these same type of games with graphs and statistics. If our team average was to close 7 cases a day and the low was 5 cases a day and the high was 8.5 cases a day....instead of making a graph scaled from zero to 10 he would set the low end at about 4 and the high end at 8. This made the person that did only 5 his bar on the bar graph was very short, and it gave the impression that the guy doing 8.5 was doing 4 times as much. Yes all the information was there but the visual presentation was engineered to make that impression - to emphasize the differences. This graph is the same. It would not matter if the entire world was between 375 ppm and 376 ppm, they would just make the graph be in tenths of a ppm (375.1, 375.2, etc) and they would still have their nice graphic showing a huge variation in CO2 distribution.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Dieseler
12-08-2009, 05:07 PM
OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

I had a boss that like to play these same type of games with graphs and statistics. If our team average was to close 7 cases a day and the low was 5 cases a day and the high was 8.5 cases a day....instead of making a graph scaled from zero to 10 he would set the low end at about 4 and the high end at 8. This made the person that did only 5 his bar on the bar graph was very short, and it gave the impression that the guy doing 8.5 was doing 4 times as much. Yes all the information was there but the visual presentation was engineered to make that impression - to emphasize the differences. This graph is the same. It would not matter if the entire world was between 375 ppm and 376 ppm, they would just make the graph be in tenths of a ppm (375.1, 375.2, etc) and they would still have their nice graphic showing a huge variation in CO2 distribution.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I never would have noticed.
Thanks.

dannno
12-08-2009, 05:12 PM
Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Thank ya..

BenIsForRon
12-08-2009, 05:20 PM
OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

CO2 is a much stronger green house gas than water vapor, on a molecule per molecule basis. That's why small increases in ppm can have a devastating effect, because you're actually talking about millions of tons.

This PDF explains it in pretty good detail.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

awake
12-08-2009, 06:06 PM
The globe warms and cools, it sometimes rains and other times the sun shines. Of course there is climate change, but the solution is not a global welfare scheme and world government.

idirtify
12-09-2009, 02:10 AM
Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available/Pre-Release_CO2_Data_Available_files/droppedImage.jpg

“Seriously dude”…it really IS only an infrared map, which I thought only showed heat differential. But in a way you have a point; that either way, it may not actually make much difference – and would get equally attacked. That’s because the colors have obviously been manipulated to exaggerate a very SLIGHT differential (of anything). IOW, it only shows a difference of around 0.25% (if my math is right). IOW, if blue corresponded to zero PPM and red to 390PPM, then the whole map would be a nearly indistinguishable shade of dark red. Or if blue corresponded to zero and red to 1000ppm, then the whole map would be similar shades of light blue.

silverhandorder
12-09-2009, 02:20 AM
CO2 is a much stronger green house gas than water vapor, on a molecule per molecule basis. That's why small increases in ppm can have a devastating effect, because you're actually talking about millions of tons.

This PDF explains it in pretty good detail.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

Um last I checked water vapor was far more potent then CO2.

edit:

The paper you linked contradicts what you said.

BenIsForRon
12-09-2009, 03:01 AM
No, look at the table again. CO2 is not 26% of the atmosphere (less than 1% last I heard), but it contributes (up to) 26% of the greenhouse effect.

silverhandorder
12-09-2009, 03:14 AM
That should be called into question considering the individual contribution is so low. Furthermore the following table shows contributions that are more like what I saw last time I checked this stuff out.

Maybe we are not reading it right? (26% contribution)

GunnyFreedom
12-09-2009, 03:53 AM
Um last I checked water vapor was far more potent then CO2.

edit:

The paper you linked contradicts what you said.

This.

I object to the theory of AGW because I have studied the science. Seriously, I thought everybody who had looked at this knew that H2O vapor was a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor is many orders of magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying this (as did silverhandorder) without needing to look anything up, but from memory, because contrary to what Ben has been accusing us of, we oppose the theory because we have looked into the science, and not as we have been accused of on account of drinking from the trough of big oil.

Indeed, I would say that those who push AGW are more likely to be drinking the big-oil kool-aid as they seem to be the primary "men behind the curtain" for this Cap & Trade nonsense.

When I see genuine well-documented and open-sourced science...science that supports the theory of AGW, then I will reconsider. Until then I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric.

BenIsForRon
12-09-2009, 04:25 AM
That should be called into question considering the individual contribution is so low. Furthermore the following table shows contributions that are more like what I saw last time I checked this stuff out.

Maybe we are not reading it right? (26% contribution)

I'm pretty sure I'm reading it right, though I'm not completely sure what the the mean by meter to the -2 power (square root of a meter). I think it means any given amount of space? Anyways if you read the text with the tables, they say that water vapor makes up 60% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is 26%. Now we all know that CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. A+B=C... CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas on a molecule per molecule basis.



This.

I object to the theory of AGW because I have studied the science. Seriously, I thought everybody who had looked at this knew that H2O vapor was a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor is many orders of magnitude more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying this (as did silverhandorder) without needing to look anything up, but from memory, because contrary to what Ben has been accusing us of, we oppose the theory because we have looked into the science, and not as we have been accused of on account of drinking from the trough of big oil.

Indeed, I would say that those who push AGW are more likely to be drinking the big-oil kool-aid as they seem to be the primary "men behind the curtain" for this Cap & Trade nonsense.

When I see genuine well-documented and open-sourced science...science that supports the theory of AGW, then I will reconsider. Until then I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric.

I don't think you actually looked at the paper. The authors say that water vapor is only 60% of the greenhouse effect. Do you think they are lying, or mistaken?

silverhandorder
12-09-2009, 07:52 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm reading it right, though I'm not completely sure what the the mean by meter to the -2 power (square root of a meter). I think it means any given amount of space? Anyways if you read the text with the tables, they say that water vapor makes up 60% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is 26%. Now we all know that CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. A+B=C... CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas on a molecule per molecule basis.

Well first of I know for a fact that water vapor contributes 90% of the green house effect. So you are definitely reading table 3 wrong. Not surprisingly table 3 refers to other studies and over all sounds like gibberish.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

If you continue reading on to table 4 we get more sense out of it.


The contribution of each gas absorber to the total atmospheric absorption is given in Table 4. For cloudy conditions, water vapor accounts for nearly half of the total atmospheric absorption, while the second most important absorber is ozone; the contribution by carbon dioxide is small.

To me it seems the scientists are exploring different properties here that have nothing to do with the total CO2 efficiency as a green house gas.

sofia
12-09-2009, 07:57 AM
The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, .

Hundreds of institutions and economists back up Keynesian economics too.

Hundreds of institutions and historians claim Wilson, FDR, World Wars etc were the greatest things since sliced bread

Hundreds of institutions and scientists told us H1N1 Swine Flu was going to be an epidemic this year...

get the point?

Put your faith in your own common sense...not in bought and paid for "intellectuals"

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

MelissaWV
12-09-2009, 08:02 AM
My God. This is worse than I thought. Water vapor!

Well there's only one thing left to do. For our own protection, the Government must take control of water sources and ration them out, also capping them so that water doesn't evaporate maliciously. Thank God the Government is here to help. I'm willing to pay to get good, wholesome, clean Government water... and to help the earth cool off a bit. Without that pesky weather cycle, we should be in great shape?

not.your.average.joe
12-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Do you know what the 2nd leading cause of death (behind auto accidents) for childrend 12 and younger is... Drowning

About 6,500 drownings a year total in the US, all ages...

I WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT ALL THESE DEATHS!!! Doenst the government realize how dangerous water is!!! Even the cleanest and freshest water on the planet will kill you with no remorse.

NYgs23
12-09-2009, 11:30 AM
I try to remain agnostic on the question of global warming. My take is that even if everything they're saying were true, that still doesn't justify central economic planning. I think focusing too much on debunking global warming suggests that if it were true, that would be a knock-out blow for free market principles.

NYgs23
12-09-2009, 11:40 AM
Hundreds of institutions and economists back up Keynesian economics too.

Hundreds of institutions and historians claim Wilson, FDR, World Wars etc were the greatest things since sliced bread

Hundreds of institutions and scientists told us H1N1 Swine Flu was going to be an epidemic this year...

get the point?

Put your faith in your own common sense...not in bought and paid for "intellectuals"

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

It is true that, despite how much the environmentalists complain about skeptical think tanks being "corporate astroturf," if you follow the money, you find that practically the whole of modern academia is government astroturf by the same standards. All those organizations are either arms of the government, or they're at least partially dependent on the government for funds (grants, student loan subsidies) and monopoly privileges (charters, licenses, accreditation). The storied and much beloved "peer review process" also strikes me as a cartelizing function, along with the very concepts of a "scientific community" and a "scientific consensus." True authority can only be discerned by open and uncontrolled competition in a free market of ideas, whereas the "intellectual class" of the modern world appears to have taken on the characteristics of a mystery cult, with the "experts" enthroned in the their ivory tower deciding who should be inducted into the circle.

awake
12-09-2009, 11:40 AM
There are some who do no see 'it'. They look upon government as a child looks to his parent for approval and reward. But, the parent in this situation, the state, is a psychologically and physically abusive partner. When those who realize this fact try to leave it, they are threatened, attacked and robbed by its supporters.

Dieseler
12-09-2009, 11:42 AM
My God. This is worse than I thought. Water vapor!

Well there's only one thing left to do. For our own protection, the Government must take control of water sources and ration them out, also capping them so that water doesn't evaporate maliciously. Thank God the Government is here to help. I'm willing to pay to get good, wholesome, clean Government water... and to help the earth cool off a bit. Without that pesky weather cycle, we should be in great shape?

I'm pretty sure Nancy and T. Boone Pickens have a plan for just that. Something to do with that wind energy thing.

sofia
12-09-2009, 12:30 PM
This is a controlled "leak"

It does two things...

1. "Reassures" us people in the developed world that we aren't giving away the store to the third world..

2. Provides pressure for us to actually give away the store later on when no one is paying attention.

jmdrake
12-09-2009, 01:25 PM
The science isn't a scam.

Yes it is.



Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia.


You've admitted you're not a scientist. I am. I have my name as a co-author on scientific papers. I'm married to a researcher. Here is how the game works. All major scientific journal articles must go through what is known as "peer review". Leaders in the field can torpedo an otherwise well written article just by giving it bad reviews. The CRU is (was?) the undisputed leader in the field. Plus there were collaborating with scientists AROUND THE WORLD in this fraud! You can't "forget about East Anglia". Not if you want to honestly look at what's going on.



Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger.


And sometimes governments make up problems in order to advance their agenda. Take the Iraqi WMD fiasco. Our government and the British government made up data to fit the policy they wanted. The downing street memo proved this. But neocons held onto the belief of WMDs just like you are holding onto the belief of AGW.

Again I ask you the question I asked in another thread. If AGW on earth is real then what causes global warming on Mars and Jupiter?



So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

AGW is a scam. The treaty being put forward at Copenhagen is the ends. AGW is merely the means. If CO2 is really a hazard then why isn't anyone demanding an end to carbonated sodas?

BenIsForRon
12-09-2009, 04:00 PM
Well first of I know for a fact that water vapor contributes 90% of the green house effect. So you are definitely reading table 3 wrong. Not surprisingly table 3 refers to other studies and over all sounds like gibberish.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

If you continue reading on to table 4 we get more sense out of it.

To me it seems the scientists are exploring different properties here that have nothing to do with the total CO2 efficiency as a green house gas.

They are studying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The article you cited even concedes that CO2 is a green house gas. The difference is your article states water vapor is 90%, the one I quoted has it at 60% on a clear day, over 70% on a cloudy day.

Anyway, its crazy to argue this on this forum. There are about a thousand different theories... It's warming! It's cooling! CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas! CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it isn't that important!


Yes it is.



Nobody's suggesting a ban on soda because they're not a fucking power plant that burns hundreds of tons of coal everyday, stop being a demagogue.

As far as the other planets warming, I'm sure sun activity is one of the only factors that can cause them to warm, but earth has other factors, including CO2 emissions from industry. So we have to look at more than what mars is doing, because we're different.

And East Anglia, though it is one of the top researchers, is far from the only one. Many other institutions have gotten their own ice cores and other raw data, so it seems to me that you are suggesting that they are all in on it. So you might as well just give up on this whole liberty thing, because they've got us far outnumbered.

jmdrake
12-09-2009, 07:31 PM
Nobody's suggesting a ban on soda because they're not a fucking power plant that burns hundreds of tons of coal everyday, stop being a demagogue.


Cows aren't "fucking power plants" either. Yet there are all sorts of proposals to ban eating meat. It makes no sense that there are none to ban soda. Meat at least supplies protein. Carbonated soda supplies....? I asked a serious question and you decided to be a prick. Back off your climate change cool aid. Or at least take the carbon out. :p




As far as the other planets warming, I'm sure sun activity is one of the only factors that can cause them to warm, but earth has other factors, including CO2 emissions from industry. So we have to look at more than what mars is doing, because we're different.


And we have too because.....? Al Gore told you? Yes we're different. There are no SUVs on Mars. None on Jupiter either. That makes them perfect "control" planets. If you have a hypothesis that soy milk causes breast cancer and you look at people who drink soy milk and those that don't and they have the same cancer rate you don't say "Well the people who drank the soy milk were different from the ones who didn't so that's why the cancer rates were the same". If you did, you'd be laughed out of any science conference worth it's salt. Yet that's basically what you're saying with global (really solar) warming.



And East Anglia, though it is one of the top researchers, is far from the only one. Many other institutions have gotten their own ice cores and other raw data, so it seems to me that you are suggesting that they are all in on it. So you might as well just give up on this whole liberty thing, because they've got us far outnumbered.

*sigh* Did you even understand what I was saying about peer review? A few top scientist can drive a field. It's not "majority rules". It's funny that a day after I (attempted) to explain this to you this clip was posted at RPF. One scientist explains how the emails showed attempts to crush dissenting scientists and to force journals to only cover what they wanted covered.

YouTube - Patrick J. Michaels discusses Climategate on CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgj6Deni_Y)

As for being outnumbered, did you pay attention to the primary returns last year? As a whole the liberty movement is outnumber on every front. So? Is that a reason to "give up"? Or is it a reason to fight harder? I was right when I disagreed with 70% of Americans who thought Iraq was behind 9/11. I was right when I disagreed with the majority of Americans who either voted for John McCain or Barack Obama. I was right when I disagreed with the majority of Americans that bought into AGW. Now a (slight) majority of Americans agree with me. There is strong evidence that a majority of scientists agree with me to. (30,000 climate scientists against the IPCC report compared with the 3,000 who signed on, many of whom later recanted). But I could care less if every scientist agreed with junk science. It's still junk science.

Regards,

John M. Drake

BenIsForRon
12-09-2009, 10:14 PM
There are hundreds of journals out there. Phil Jones and his buddies don't have their fingers in all of them. I posted an article written from people at Arizona State. I have no reason to assume their science is compromised. Look at the literature cited section. That's a lot of people.

I know it may be harder to get a skeptical article written, but I know its not impossible. There just haven't been that many at all.

And on your planet thing, mars and jupiter haven't been heating at similar rates to earth. As I said, even with solar flares, earth has other, compounding factors.

idirtify
12-10-2009, 01:22 PM
It’s fine to separate the idea of conservation from government coercion, but good luck trying to credibly separate the concept of “AGW”/ “Climate Change” from government coercion. The latter two are not separable, and that’s one of the reasons the concept is so objectionable. It’s fine to voluntarily engage in conservation practices in your daily lives, but how would you like it if the ENVIRONMENT POLICE were to come to your home and enforce your compliance by LAW? I’m guessing you wouldn’t; even you “environmentalists” AND warmists.

Maybe we should go ahead and take a look at a tiny sample of what we all may soon have to get used to dealing with in our own homes if the warmists win:
“What did you eat yesterday?”
“Why did you eat meat?”
“Where did you buy it?”
“What did you spend on it?”
“Where did you eat it?”
“What did you do with the leftovers?”
“Why did you not eat the previous leftovers?”
“What did you do with the previous leftovers?”
“How did you get there?”
“Where did you go to the bathroom?”
“How many times?”
“Why didn’t you recycle it?”
“What was your total kilowatt usage”?
“Why was it so high?”
“Where all did you travel?”
“Why did you go to those places?”
“How did you get there?”
“What was your total fuel usage?”
“Why did you use so much?”
“What all did you buy?”
“Why did you not reuse instead of buy?”
“Why did you not buy used instead of new?”
“What all did you discard?”
“Why did you not recycle or reuse?”
“Did you wash clothes?”
“Why did you wash them? Were they really too dirty to wear another day?”
“Did you mow grass, water the yard/garden, blow the snow?”
“How much energy did you spend?”
“Why did you spend so much when you could have done it by hand?”
“How many chemicals did you use?”
“How did you dispose of them?”
“OK, that will be all for today. We will see you again tomorrow. As always, you will be receiving your carbon-credit/debit statement at the end of the month. Be sure to pay all dues/fines/fees/taxes by the due-date. Have a nice day.”

The “Global Warming / Climate Change” mentality is the motherload pot-o-gold for government, and the perfect setup for world government. It should not be hard to see how global environmentalism could become the new legislated morality, where government intervention and coercion would increase exponentially. For those of you who fear great harm due to climate change, your collective fears will only serve to create a far worse danger. Like the monsters of your nightmares, governments thrive on fear.

misterx
12-10-2009, 01:41 PM
To each his own. For my own part when they can accurately predict the weather each day for a particular local for 365 days then I'll believe that they can see a larger picture 50 years from now. As it stands I can get three different predictions from three different sources and my weather "rock" is the only thing correct 100% of the time.

It's much easier to forecast trends than to predict the weather at one specific point in time. For example, you can say with 100% certainty in September that the weather will get colder over the coming months, but you can't guarantee what the temperature will be the next day, or that it won't get warmer over the next week.

jmdrake
12-10-2009, 01:45 PM
There are hundreds of journals out there. Phil Jones and his buddies don't have their fingers in all of them.


They have their fingers in all of the top journals. The 2nd and 3rd tier journals really don't count. I know researches who won't even submit work to certain journals because they see it as a waste of their time.



I posted an article written from people at Arizona State. I have no reason to assume their science is compromised. Look at the literature cited section. That's a lot of people.


And you've read all of the papers that were cited to make sure that none of them used data from the IPCC?



And on your planet thing, mars and jupiter haven't been heating at similar rates to earth. As I said, even with solar flares, earth has other, compounding factors.

Yes they have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

When the ice caps on earth melt, the ice caps on mars melt. When the ice caps on mars expand, the ice caps on earth expand.

[edit] Actually there are some reports that global warming has happened faster on Mars. Those solar powered Mars rovers must be taking a heavy toll.

http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Global_Warming_Hits_Mars_Too_999.html

Besides, CO2 is released as a result of warming. Here is an article from people that take your side that admits this.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09feb_1.htm

Second, the best way to get Mars to release its CO2 spontaneously is, well... to warm it up.

The release of CO2 is caused by warming. Not the other way around.

misterx
12-10-2009, 01:50 PM
The release of CO2 is caused by warming. Not the other way around.

Half truth. The reason it is called a runaway greenhouse effect is because the release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes more warming, which releases more CO2 which creates even more warming.

jmdrake
12-10-2009, 01:52 PM
Half truth. The reason it is called a runaway greenhouse effect is because the release of CO2 into the atmosphere causes more warming, which releases more CO2 which creates even more warming.

Whatever. It's "running away" faster on mars despite the fact that the only SUVs on mars are solar powered.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/lnl/001/images/mars_rover-small1.jpg

Yep. That must be what caused mars to warm 4 times faster than earth.

BenIsForRon
12-10-2009, 03:38 PM
Yes they have.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html


Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.

I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

Bruno
12-10-2009, 03:51 PM
Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.

I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

Have you checked this out, Ben? The Global Warming Skeptics Handbook II. Free download

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=991

klamath
12-10-2009, 04:43 PM
It's much easier to forecast trends than to predict the weather at one specific point in time. For example, you can say with 100% certainty in September that the weather will get colder over the coming months, but you can't guarantee what the temperature will be the next day, or that it won't get warmer over the next week.
Have you ever looked at a long term general area forecast. They have a very poor record. They can't even get an accurate El Nino forcast which is a cyclical pattern.

Noob
12-10-2009, 04:45 PM
Whatever happens, the world is screwed.

silverhandorder
12-10-2009, 05:58 PM
They are studying CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. The article you cited even concedes that CO2 is a green house gas. The difference is your article states water vapor is 90%, the one I quoted has it at 60% on a clear day, over 70% on a cloudy day.

Anyway, its crazy to argue this on this forum. There are about a thousand different theories... It's warming! It's cooling! CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas! CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it isn't that important!

As long as we can agree that this has no place in politics.

jmdrake
12-10-2009, 06:29 PM
Did you even read that article? The whole second half is other scientists debunking his reasoning.


Sure I read it. The "debunking" was based on the fact that Mars wobbles. But these same scientists admitted that the earth wobbles too! There "debunking" was churlish.

Here. Please read this part that you apparently missed.

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.



I think we're done here anyway. I've stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you've said that it's not. We've both given some reading to support our arguments. I think anybody willing to look into will see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has more radiative potential that water vapor.

I think anyone willing to look into it will see that Mars heated up 4 times the rate that the earth did during the same period and realize that the who AGW argument is at best bad science and at worse a hoax.

And for the record, even your own side knows your wrong about the global warming potential of water.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/KeyIssues/climate_change3.html
Q What is the global warming potential of water vapor? Are the anthropogenic water vapor emissions significant?
A Water vapor is a very important part of the earth's natural greenhouse gas effect and the chemical species that exerts the largest heat trapping effect. Water has the biggest heat trapping effect because of its large concentration compared to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%. Clouds absorb a portion of the energy incident sunlight and water vapor absorbs reflected heat as well.


Combustion of fossils fuels produces water vapor in addition to carbon dioxide, but it is generally accepted that human activities have not increased the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. However an article written in 1995 indicates that water vapor concentrations are increasing. [S.J. Oltmans and D.J. Hoffman, Nature 374 (1995):146-149] Some researchers argue there is a positive correlation between water vapor in the air and global temperature. As with many climate issues, this one is still evolving.

Noob
11-30-2010, 08:40 AM
Climate Alarmists Push Forced Relocation At Cancun Summit


Not content with merely pushing world war-style rationing and the complete de-industrialization of the planet, global warming alarmists meeting in Cancun Mexico this week will propose the forced relocation of entire populations in the name of offsetting man made climate change.

The shocking proposal appears on page 6 of the executive summary of the Special Climate Change Program.
As a means of mitigating climate change, encouraging sustainability and reducing CO2 emissions, the document calls for, “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”

Relocation of populations has historically been achieved by force at the hands of an authoritarian ruling elite, to the “substantial harm” of the target settlement, with loss of private property and harrowing social dislocation, and in some cases genocide, being three primary outcomes. The most odious example in recent history was of course the forced transfer of Jews from wartime Germany by the Nazis.

Political scientist Norman Finkelstein notes that forced relocations are often justified by the ruling authorities as a necessary solution to a drastic crisis, which is precisely the rhetoric used in the Cancun document.

The proposal by climate alarmists to forcibly relocate communities against their will is yet another revealing indication that the green movement has dispensed with all pretense of liberal legitimacy and has openly bared its teeth as an authoritarian and despotic undertaking.

Yesterday we reported on how ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society published a series of papers to accompany the conference which stated that wartime-style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-alarmists-push-forced-relocation-at-cancun-summit.html