Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

[Toronado3800]

What is man doing to increase the temperature? And if you say producing more CO2 please provide a study that shows where a scientist has been able to increase the temperature by increasing CO2. I have not seen this anywhere...

Grade school children can increase the CO2 level in a sealed fish tank and compare its temperature to one with the "normal" atmospheric mix. The general warming effect of greenhouse gasses isn't up for debate. We can argue how much is needed to heat up the planet.

You Liberals can Stop Misplacing Guilt now... At least on this Issue.

Two is my Favorite... So far:

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Bad number. You're comparing emissions from the last 200 years to the last 4.5 billion? I should hope they'd be more out of whack!

Each year man contributes between 2% and 5.5% to the CO2 in the atmosphere depending on who you believe. That means we double it roughly every 20 to 50 years.

 

[ba1614]

Would have been nice had they NOT have thrown out the raw data they based their findings on.

Whatever would have made them do such a thing I wonder...

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

I would give anything for honest scientific analysis and debate, but that just doesn't seem possible, in today's political climate on the issue. I don't know how a rational person can just accept the data provided, from either side of the debate. They both have their own agendas and appear willing to go to any lengths to discredit the other.

There is so much bullshit floating around, from both sides, that I don't know how the average citizen can distinguish between fact and fiction.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are MANY reasons things are warming, man is one of them.

Why cant you guys figure this science out?

The Earth went through Hot and cold cycles without human input. The industrial revolution began in the late 1800's. There have been hot and cold cycles here on the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, long
before any human input of greenhouse gases.Human Global warming is all false, a scam perpertrated by the developed nations to control the third world.

Please Google --->Sun spot activity and global warming.!

Yes, you stupid ass, we know that. In fact, the geological history of warming and cooling periods of the earth are chronicled by scientists, not by the dumb asses selling doubt. And we know the reasons for most of the periods of warming and cooling. GHGs.

Just because it is now humans that are causing the GHGs does not excuse us from the physics of the results of those GHGs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Would have been nice had they NOT have thrown out the raw data they based their findings on.

Whatever would have made them do such a thing I wonder...

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

I would give anything for honest scientific analysis and debate, but that just doesn't seem possible, in today's political climate on the issue. I don't know how a rational person can just accept the data provided, from either side of the debate. They both have their own agendas and appear willing to go to any lengths to discredit the other.

There is so much bullshit floating around, from both sides, that I don't know how the average citizen can distinguish between fact and fiction.

Hell, look at the nearest mountain range, compare the glaciers now to what they used to be.

I have seen this issue from the mid-60s until the present. There is ample data that is neutral, politically. And it all points to rapid warming, a warming more rapid that that which preceded the P-T Extinction Event, or that which preceded the PETM.

 

[Old Rocks]

AGW is officially a religion.

All dissent is blasphemy.


This is really strange.

Crock of shit.

I would welcome any evidence that showed that we are not headed into a repeat of the PETM. Right now, everything that I see indicates that we are already past the point of no return.

Much of the 'dissent' is based on such fraudulent science that there is outright contempt among those who understand basic science for these charlatans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Completely beside the point of edthlemming cherry picking what data is acceptable to him at any given moment in time.

You just can't stop yourself from lying or projecting.

You rejected surface temps, you rejected RSS Troposphere temps, you rejected UAH corrected Troposphere temps, all of which I accept. You only use the USA temps as the GLOBAL temps which any honest person would reject.

So again I ask, what will it take to get you to stop lying????????????????????????????????

Ain't no power on Earth capable of stopping ol' Dooodeees....... lies. He will project his ignorance and stupidity for as long as he is alive.

 

[del]

AGW is officially a religion.

All dissent is blasphemy.


This is really strange.

Crock of shit.

I would welcome any evidence that showed that we are not headed into a repeat of the PETM. Right now, everything that I see indicates that we are already past the point of no return.

Much of the 'dissent' is based on such fraudulent science that there is outright contempt among those who understand basic science for these charlatans.

could you be any more full of shit? really? you welcome evidence like the grand inquisitor welcomed protestants.

 

[edthecynic]

Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

You Liberals can Stop Misplacing Guilt now... At least on this Issue.

Two is my Favorite... So far:

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.




peace...
merged-del

You would be that gullible!

How many BILLIONS of years is "geological history."

Today, Man-made CO2 exceeds volcanic CO2 by a factor of 150!!!!

How many BILLIONS of years has the earth been here with many, many climate changes, and we have the arrogance to think that we are changing it. It will be here long after we are all gone as it was before man.

The point was that you deniers have to go back billions of years to get the % of man-made CO2 down that low when we out produce volcanos by a factor of 150.

And it is pure stupidity to be brainwashed into parroting that it is "arrogance" to think 6 BILLION people have no effect on the global environment.

The ONLY sensible thing you said is the Earth will still be here after we're gone. Of course, you self-hating deniers seem to want to speed up nature's cleansing itself of the human population.

 

[edthecynic]

Would have been nice had they NOT have thrown out the raw data they based their findings on.

Whatever would have made them do such a thing I wonder...

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

I would give anything for honest scientific analysis and debate, but that just doesn't seem possible, in today's political climate on the issue. I don't know how a rational person can just accept the data provided, from either side of the debate. They both have their own agendas and appear willing to go to any lengths to discredit the other.

There is so much bullshit floating around, from both sides, that I don't know how the average citizen can distinguish between fact and fiction.

And that is the goal of the deniers. It's called "Muddying the Waters."

Because all the deniers' data IS fudged, they know they have to create doubt in the real data of real scientists. Deniers know people who are not that familiar with science can be confused if the deniers are insistent enough.

 

[del]

There might have been rooms full of it and they thought once put to computerized archives, that would be the end of it. I'm sure scientists with several degrees and Ph.D's never thought they'd need to come up against a bunch of yahoos denying their hard work. If this conflict had been solely among the scientists who have what they believe a proven theory, and those who think there is more to it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But these days, everything has to have sides taken among the general public. How dumb is that? Let the SCIENTISTS do their job. Their minds are greater than anyone's found here, that's for damned sure.

I would give anything for honest scientific analysis and debate, but that just doesn't seem possible, in today's political climate on the issue. I don't know how a rational person can just accept the data provided, from either side of the debate. They both have their own agendas and appear willing to go to any lengths to discredit the other.

There is so much bullshit floating around, from both sides, that I don't know how the average citizen can distinguish between fact and fiction.

And that is the goal of the deniers. It's called "Muddying the Waters."

Because all the deniers' data IS fudged, they know they have to create doubt in the real data of real scientists. Deniers know people who are not that familiar with science can be confused if the deniers are insistent enough.

you mean the data the *real* scientists threw out? that *real* data?

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

or the *value added* data that they kept?

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

i always thought that *real* scientists kept the *raw* data.

you know, so their work could be peer reviewed by other *real* scientists.


go figure, huh?

 

[Oddball]

Have you got a better way of proving what happened that long ago? Those rings, by the way, varied from place to place all over the globe using the same tree species. Therefore, it really can't be considered a "global" warming.

Completely beside the point of edthlemming cherry picking what data is acceptable to him at any given moment in time.

You just can't stop yourself from lying or projecting.

You rejected surface temps, you rejected RSS Troposphere temps, you rejected UAH corrected Troposphere temps, all of which I accept. You only use the USA temps as the GLOBAL temps which any honest person would reject.

So again I ask, what will it take to get you to stop lying????????????????????????????????

You don't know jack shit as to what I've rejected, other than the IPCC's phony "consensus", which is trumped up on less than 10% of the research works they accepted for review.

I do know that when the troposphere data doesn't come up with the results you like, you then shift to land surface data. And when dissenting scientists claim that the AGW hoax is a hoax, you shift straight into ad hominem attack mode, rather than deal with the data itself.

Then, of course, there's the recently leaked info from CRU et al, which you've taken the stale old tack of screeching "out of context", without providing what you believe to be the "proper" context. And don't bother with the "debunking" done by CRU and IPCC's leading butt boy at AP; you wouldn't take the say-so of a sycophant and neither should anyone else.

None of which, again, gets you to enumerate what evidence you'd accept, that would prove to you that the AGW hoax is a hoax, because your mind is completely closed to the possibility and you're nothing but a pimp for junk science.

 

[edthecynic]

Completely beside the point of edthlemming cherry picking what data is acceptable to him at any given moment in time.

You just can't stop yourself from lying or projecting.

You rejected surface temps, you rejected RSS Troposphere temps, you rejected UAH corrected Troposphere temps, all of which I accept. You only use the USA temps as the GLOBAL temps which any honest person would reject.

So again I ask, what will it take to get you to stop lying????????????????????????????????

You don't know jack shit as to what I've rejected, other than the IPCC's phony "consensus", which is trumped up on less than 10% of the research works they accepted for review.

I do know that when the troposphere data doesn't come up with the results you like, you then shift to land surface data. And when dissenting scientists claim that the AGW hoax is a hoax, you shift straight into ad hominem attack mode, rather than deal with the data itself.

Then, of course, there's the recently leaked info from CRU et al, which you've taken the stale old tack of screeching "out of context", without providing what you believe to be the "proper" context. And don't bother with the "debunking" by CRU and IPCC's leading butt boy at AP; you wouldn't take the say-so of a sycophant and neither should anyone else.

None of which, again, gets you to enumerate what evidence you'd accept, that would prove to you that the AGW hoax is a hoax, because your mind is completely closed to the possibility and you're nothing but a pimp for junk science.

Still can't stop yourself from lying, I see.

The Troposphere data does match the surface data, so why would I throw it out????
What I threw out was the early UAH data cooked by deniers John Christy and Roy Spencer (LimpBoy's climatologist) when it was learned that they "just happened" to use the opposite sigh to correct for Diurnal Satellite Drift. But even they had to admit that once their errors were corrected the Troposphere matched the surface temp data. Deniers use the old UAH data that is known to be cooked EXCLUSIVELY, to the exclusion of the RSS Troposphere data and the surface data.

And I have repeatedly given the correct context of the CRU emails, which you continue to ignore just as you do the data I have repeatedly said I would accept.

From the paper co-authored by John Christy:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

 

[edthecynic]

I would give anything for honest scientific analysis and debate, but that just doesn't seem possible, in today's political climate on the issue. I don't know how a rational person can just accept the data provided, from either side of the debate. They both have their own agendas and appear willing to go to any lengths to discredit the other.

There is so much bullshit floating around, from both sides, that I don't know how the average citizen can distinguish between fact and fiction.

And that is the goal of the deniers. It's called "Muddying the Waters."

Because all the deniers' data IS fudged, they know they have to create doubt in the real data of real scientists. Deniers know people who are not that familiar with science can be confused if the deniers are insistent enough.

you mean the data the *real* scientists threw out? that *real* data?

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

or the *value added* data that they kept?

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

i always thought that *real* scientists kept the *raw* data.

you know, so their work could be peer reviewed by other *real* scientists.


go figure, huh?

As you well know, the raw data was kept until CRU moved to a new building when it was lost in the move. As you also know, there are two other sources of the raw data still available.
You need a new red herring.

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of fudging the numbers to get the results you want:


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)...

...What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil​

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.​

...

Why don't you post one of them pretty color coded charts with the faked Russian temperature numbers, again, Eddie Hassle?

 

[edthecynic]

Speaking of fudging the numbers to get the results you want:


Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)...

...What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil​

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.​

...

Why don't you post one of them pretty color coded charts with the faked Russian temperature numbers, again, Eddie Hassle?

Only Commie Red State America-hating CON$ trust the Russians, Komrad Dupe!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...The ad hominem attack, right on cue.

Is it any wonder people like me, who think for themselves using reason and logic, don't believe you flipped-out cargo cultists anymore?

 

[Sodafin]

It's a sad, lonely little thread this, isn't it?

Reading through there seems to be far, far more references to politics than there are to science - which I think says it all, really. Whereas we now see even most conservative politicians (i.e. Sakorzy, Merkel, Key, McCain) utterly convinced of the science of climate change, the people we can not convince with science are the diehard right wingers.

Put it this way - at the stage someone can explain why 99% of North America's glaciers are in retreat, and at a rate of decline double that of 1950 - a fact I believe there is total consensus on amongst scientists - then perhaps we'll be able to move on with the discussion.

 

[del]

And that is the goal of the deniers. It's called "Muddying the Waters."

Because all the deniers' data IS fudged, they know they have to create doubt in the real data of real scientists. Deniers know people who are not that familiar with science can be confused if the deniers are insistent enough.

you mean the data the *real* scientists threw out? that *real* data?

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation."

or the *value added* data that they kept?

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

i always thought that *real* scientists kept the *raw* data.

you know, so their work could be peer reviewed by other *real* scientists.


go figure, huh?

As you well know, the raw data was kept until CRU moved to a new building when it was lost in the move. As you also know, there are two other sources of the raw data still available.
You need a new red herring.

yes, of course, it was *lost*.

 

[Oddball]

As you well know, the raw data was kept until CRU moved to a new building when it was lost in the move. As you also know, there are two other sources of the raw data still available.
You need a new red herring.

"The dog ate my homework" is much more credible.

 

[Oddball]

It's a sad, lonely little thread this, isn't it?

Reading through there seems to be far, far more references to politics than there are to science - which I think says it all, really. Whereas we now see even most conservative politicians (i.e. Sakorzy, Merkel, Key, McCain) utterly convinced of the science of climate change, the people we can not convince with science are the diehard right wingers.

Appeals to authority don't fly here.

Put it this way - at the stage someone can explain why 99% of North America's glaciers are in retreat, and at a rate of decline double that of 1950 - a fact I believe there is total consensus on amongst scientists - then perhaps we'll be able to move on with the discussion.

Put it this way: Correlation does not equal causation....Never did, never will.