2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[rushmc 18]

Oh, kallend and billvon, their title, not mine. I know how easy you are confused about this kind of thing. I post for comment and discussion. Unfortantly I await (expect) the prerequisite trashing of the author and complete disregard of the content



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Don't forget the thrashing of you for posting the link.....

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Amazon 7]

The truth is out there




I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The truth is out there

Yes it is




I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe
I want to believe

No, you don't (care what the truth is if is goes against your world veiw template)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Oh, kallend and billvon, their title, not mine. I know how easy you are confused about this kind of thing. I post for comment and discussion. Unfortantly I await (expect) the prerequisite trashing of the author and complete disregard of the content

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

The content seems to be nothing more than a note that there is a lot of snow this year, and that cooler temperatures this year negate a century's worth of global warming. It seems like the author doesn't understand the concept of averages.

(And according to Wikipedia he isn't above flat out lying in order to support his claims, either.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Don't forget the thrashing of you for posting the link.....

LOL

Ya, but that is why I was allowed to sign up

There are many that all of us can have good exchanges with. Unfortunatly, those to whom GWing is a religion, are not among them. At least for this topic.

I posted early this year that I believed that 08 was the beginning of the end for the GWing extreemist (which is not all or even most of them) I have been following NASA and other reports. I 'feel" the cycle is changing. GWing exteemists (again, not all of them) have to hurry to push the radical change agenda they feel we need to follow. Because THEY believe it is the right thing to do. WE are not smart enough to see THEY are right.

In the end this is not and has never been about GWing (the man made kind) It is about money and power. Our money giving them power.

Now, I do not believe this articel has in any way stopped or disproved anything. It raises questions.
It is another disenter spelling out what he sees.

To bad for him? Maybe.

As for me? I will keep reading and posting and asking questions. I still have alot to learn

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Oh, kallend and billvon, their title, not mine. I know how easy you are confused about this kind of thing. I post for comment and discussion. Unfortantly I await (expect) the prerequisite trashing of the author and complete disregard of the content

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

The content seems to be nothing more than a note that there is a lot of snow this year, and that cooler temperatures this year negate a century's worth of global warming. It seems like the author doesn't understand the concept of averages.

(And according to Wikipedia he isn't above flat out lying in order to support his claims, either.)

Have you been reading abuot the claims the GWing supporters are saying about todays weather?

If is good enough for them?

And about the flat out lieing??

Give me a break

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Have you been reading abuot the claims the GWing supporters are saying about todays weather?

Enlighten me.

Quote

And about the flat out lieing??

Give me a break

Quote

Booker's articles in The Daily Telegraph on asbestos and also on global warming have been challenged by George Monbiot in an article in The Guardian [1].

Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" [2] were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).

Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act [3] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[4].

Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[5].

In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal[6] after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"[7].

In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[8] after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". [9].

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[10]. In the article[11], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[12], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming''[13] and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'.[14] The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." That claim is false as an explanation was provided on 13 December and Booker's article was published on 21 December.[15].

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Laszloimage 0]

Conservative media says climate change has nothing to do with our industrialized world.
Libereal media sometimes over dramitizes the situation.
But now let me ask how many of you (who makes comments here at DZ.com) actually have information about this issue directly from a scientist?
How many of you had acces to pure data?
...Because I had.
A few months ago I was working on a TV show (working as a camera man, hopefully the show will be aired on Discovery) which touched the climate change issue as well. I recorded some stunning interview with a scientist who's head of this research center. A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).
THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THE "HUMAN EFFECT" OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE! ...yes the Earth has it's natural temperature change cycle, but it should happen through milleniums not through decades.
The good news is most likely the "Climate change"is reversable and fixable.

-Laszlo-

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Conservative media says climate change has nothing to do with our industrialized world.
Libereal media sometimes over dramitizes the situation.
But now let me ask how many of you (who makes comments here at DZ.com) actually have information about this issue directly from a scientist?
How many of you had acces to pure data?
...Because I had.
A few months ago I was working on a TV show (working as a camera man, hopefully the show will be aired on Discovery) which touched the climate change issue as well. I recorded some stunning interview with a scientist who's head of this research center. A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).
THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THE "HUMAN EFFECT" OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE! ...yes the Earth has it's natural temperature change cycle, but it should happen through milleniums not through decades.
The good news is most likely the "Climate change"is reversable and fixable.

-Laszlo-

And scientists I have read say the we have no way of providing accurate temp measuements for todays world temps.

If I had the guess the measurements you are talking abuot are more to CO2 than temp? Guessing.

And, what ever measurements he speaks, well, I will be you can find another one that says his methods sucks or his conclusions are flawed.

look, I am open to anything but crazy government imposed bs.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Conservative media says climate change has nothing to do with our industrialized world.
Libereal media sometimes over dramitizes the situation.
But now let me ask how many of you (who makes comments here at DZ.com) actually have information about this issue directly from a scientist?
How many of you had acces to pure data?
...Because I had.
A few months ago I was working on a TV show (working as a camera man, hopefully the show will be aired on Discovery) which touched the climate change issue as well. I recorded some stunning interview with a scientist who's head of this research center. A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).
THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THE "HUMAN EFFECT" OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE! ...yes the Earth has it's natural temperature change cycle, but it should happen through milleniums not through decades.
The good news is most likely the "Climate change"is reversable and fixable.

-Laszlo-

And scientists I have read say the we have no way of providing accurate temp measuements for todays world temps.

If I had the guess the measurements you are talking abuot are more to CO2 than temp? Guessing.

And, what ever measurements he speaks, well, I will be you can find another one that says his methods sucks or his conclusions are flawed.

look, I am open to anything but crazy government imposed bs.

You believe what is convenient to you, since your company alone spews 32 MILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

The author of the article you cited is a joke.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Conservative media says climate change has nothing to do with our industrialized world.
Libereal media sometimes over dramitizes the situation.
But now let me ask how many of you (who makes comments here at DZ.com) actually have information about this issue directly from a scientist?
How many of you had acces to pure data?
...Because I had.
A few months ago I was working on a TV show (working as a camera man, hopefully the show will be aired on Discovery) which touched the climate change issue as well. I recorded some stunning interview with a scientist who's head of this research center. A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).
THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THE "HUMAN EFFECT" OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE! ...yes the Earth has it's natural temperature change cycle, but it should happen through milleniums not through decades.
The good news is most likely the "Climate change"is reversable and fixable.

-Laszlo-

And scientists I have read say the we have no way of providing accurate temp measuements for todays world temps.

If I had the guess the measurements you are talking abuot are more to CO2 than temp? Guessing.

And, what ever measurements he speaks, well, I will be you can find another one that says his methods sucks or his conclusions are flawed.

look, I am open to anything but crazy government imposed bs.

You believe what is convenient to you, since your company alone spews 32 MILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.And for you to believe you know what this means is a BIGGER convenience

The author of the article you cited is a joke.

Thanks for supporting the premise of the OP of the thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

It is not surprising to me you take the position you do.

Simply put, you want the government to control as much as it can.

Guns, religion, CEO's pay, health care, schools, the courts, and, fitting to this thread, the people of the US. Yep, you want to tell us all what kind of and how much energy we can use. Strikingly, this is the same trick you would have used to control manufacturing. Sad part about the latter, it is what has (or been a major part of) the down fall of that very business in the US. Through fucked up over reaching regulation made by people elected to office who aint got a clue what they are doing. They just cow tow to the extreemist in their base.

Yep, not surprising at all.

Now, you can say I want a dirty planet for your grand children. Hmmm, what kind of planet are you leaning toward?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

It is not surprising to me you take the position you do.

Simply put, you want the government to control as much as it can.
?

Fascinating that you can draw such a conclusion from your own company's pollution and your own use of an article written by a known charlatan. You must be back to "Looking Glass Logic".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

It is not surprising to me you take the position you do.

Simply put, you want the government to control as much as it can.
?

Fascinating that you can draw such a conclusion from your own company's pollution and your own use of an article written by a known charlatan. You must be back to "Looking Glass Logic".

The company I work for has nothing to do with. Common sense and reading of your posts and positons are where my conclusions came from.

Funny, you did not deny any of them
I awaint you next pa.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

JOBS JOBS JOBS


It explains a LOT about the way several posters here i n SC post the way that they do.

Its not about what is good for the country or our planet.... its all about their JOBS JOBS JOBS and their little slice of the pie.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The content seems to be nothing more than a note that there is a lot of snow this year, and that cooler temperatures this year negate a century's worth of global warming. It seems like the author doesn't understand the concept of averages.

(And according to Wikipedia he isn't above flat out lying in order to support his claims, either.)

Yes, we have an article by a columnist who believes in the premise that any publicity is good publicity. His declaration it has been disproved is no more authoritative than one of our guys saying he "feels" the trend is changing. (Dude - the trend is a bit more subtle than something you can directly sense).

Not sure how the rest of the world is doing, but the ski resorts of California didn't have adequate snow for business until just a few days before Christmas. This is about 3 weeks late, and often Thanksgiving is skiable. Last year was also a poor year.

Of course, we had the same problem in the late 80s in the last extended drought. It's silly trying to make a conclusion based on 2008. Unfortunately, like recessions, it's hard to make the conclusion until afterwards, and if we're on the losing side, it's then too late to do anything.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

A person from a laboratory which collects weather data for 130 years every single day (!!! that's a lot of data to have good conclusion).
THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THE "HUMAN EFFECT" OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE! ...yes the Earth has it's natural temperature change cycle, but it should happen through milleniums not through decades.

So he isn't pointing at his own data? He's only got data for 130 years - he doesn't have millenia. In other words, he brings forth data (weather obeservations from 130 years) and sees that the temperatures are increasing. Okay - I've got no problem with that (I'd be an asshole to suggest that it is inaccurate since one would expect it to be warmer now than at the end of the "Little Ice Age.) And on the basis of 130 years of data, he says (without producing the data) that changes occur over millenia.

He doesn't HAVE millenia of data. In fact, really reliable raw data wasn't widely available until about 1860.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

JOBS JOBS JOBS


It explains a LOT about the way several posters here i n SC post the way that they do.

Its not about what is good for the country or our planet.... its all about their JOBS JOBS JOBS and their little slice of the pie.

BINGO!!!! EXACTLY!!! JOBS JOBS JOBS!!!

How can a scientist get more recognition, ergo more funding? By putting out something spectacular. For example, Michael E. MAnn was the proponent of the famous graph that came to be known as the "hockey stick." It provided solid evidence to most that the earth's temperature skyrocketed in a way that is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years (which leads to the question, "Well, what about in the last 1100 years?)

The graph on on page 29 of this link: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

Page 28 states:

Quote

The data show a relatively warm period associated with the 11th to 14th centuries and a relatively cool period associated with the 15th to 19th centuries in the Northern Hemisphere. However, evidence does not support these “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” periods, respectively, as being globally synchronous. As Figure 5 indicates, the rate and duration of warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century appears to have been unprecedented during the millennium, and it cannot simply be considered as a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” of the 15th to 19th centuries.

Sweet Jesus! It talks about these two weather extremes. And where are they on the graph? 1150-1200 show a peak .1 degrees under the zero value, but a tanking in 1350 BELOW the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age? According to the graph it peaked at 1450.

It thus appears that Mann and his cohorts FUCKING IGNORED THESE PHENOMENA!!!! Or, the data that he had did not account for these generally accepted events. Yet, it is known with near certainty that these events happened.

So, was this an example of Mann ignoring history because it did not agree with his hypothesis? Was this a matter of the "proxy" data being unreliable? Or was this an example of the interpretations of the data being faulty?

Let's look some at the data. It shows a .5 Celsius drop in temperature between about 1450 and 1475. And a .5 INCREASE in about ten years (1825-1825). Even his DATA suggests rapid changes occurring frequently before industrialization.

And yet, the "hockey stick" is a flag of the movement. WHERE THE HELL ARE THE MEDIEVAL CLIMATE OPTIMUM AND THE LITTLE ICE AGE? What are Mann's methods?

And why didn't the IPCC ask these questions? Why did they merely cast aside these climate extremes as irrelevant but the new climate as relevant?

Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."

Exactly.

I also like how those who say the data shows world temps (as best they can be determined which is poor at best) LEAD changes in CO2 levels measured. That make sense when one comes to understand that the ocean is the biggest holder of CO2. Temps get warmer, more CO2. Temps get cooler, less CO2.
But any researcher is subsequently treated as kallend treats any disenter on the topic.

But it is more than just jobs. It is about government control of our lives. Governments run by fanatics who think we should live like they think we should live. Doesnt apply to them however. Think Al Gore......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Scoop 0]

Who cares. The worlds climate goes from extremes during its life cycle. It'll do just fine evolving....

... whether humans are still about when that happens is another matter

THE WORLD WILL STILL EXIST WITHOUT US. WE WONT 'KILL' THE PLANET

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Who cares. The worlds climate goes from extremes during its life cycle. It'll do just fine evolving....

... whether humans are still about when that happens is another matter

THE WORLD WILL STILL EXIST WITHOUT US. WE WONT 'KILL' THE PLANET

Cant argue with that!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

How can a scientist get more recognition, ergo more funding?

...

Deep Throat said, "Follow the money."

Okay, let's do that. It *is* a reasonable initial point of investigation and frequently an enlightening one, imo.
(What is the response if the data doesn't support the hypothesis?)

What are the relative funding levels for
(1) Missile defense (just RDT&E + MILCON),
(2) Biomedical research (& just the subset of biodefense),
(3) Astronomy-related research science (not operations) + small contribution from NSF ... ONR (through USNO) and AFOSR also fund a very small amount of atsronomy research,
(4) Climate Change (table also shows funding levels for the NNI [nanotechnology] and Networking and Information Technology R&D - the latter of which is twice as large as climate change research)

Unfortunately, if one investigates and goes to the data, the evidence actually is counter to the research finding argument. Relative funding for climate change related research is an order of magnitude lower than missile defense (not including acquisition). Funding for climate change research has fallen 23% since 2003, by the argument advanced above, one would expect to see a decrease in interest in this area.

Are you [more general than specific "you"] willing to apply that argument to those areas which the argument applies more accurately?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

Quote

THE WORLD WILL STILL EXIST WITHOUT US. WE WONT 'KILL' THE PLANET

Well, we probably won't kill the rock part, and the water will likely exist in some state or another. But we definitely can kill everything resembling life (not just humans). In fact, we've done a pretty good job deforesting, overfishing, domesticating and replacing most of the natural life on the planet that existed long before we did, and that was all WITH conservation efforts.

Can't take credit for killing the dinosaurs, unless you believe the creationist views. But most of the rest of it, we can.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[lawrocket 3]

Marg:

It is more than about just funding research. It is about funding the applied technologies, providing tax breaks, etc.

For example, defense research is a big piece of the spending for research but defense spending is far more than just that. The funding for defense R&D is well exceeded by other defense spending.

My point is that this research gets put out to get this money. Want to invade Iraq but don't have the facts to get public support for it? Point to data that suggests WMDs, ignore all other data, and spin it so as to generate sufficient fear to get the public response you need.

This is why the recent figure was tossed out that it'll cost 45 trillion to reduce greenhouse emissions in the next 40 years. Al Gore is no research scientist. He is a brilliant entrepeneur.

I am willing to agree that there are areas in which the concept applies more accurately. This backs up my point that science is often put forth for other reasons, which is why events like the Medieval Climate Optimum are ignored. How can one make the point that it never happened before and that only human activity can cause it? By ignoring that it has happened before when people could not have caused it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.