Global warming IS a hoax...

[Breton]

Response to Edufer's first post:

My apoligies, but even though there were many facts in your two posts about the issue, you conciously or unconciously left out vital details and bent the facts to your own personal bias. And most of it was opinions and speculations anyway.

In your first post, you link several times to mitosyfraudes, a site whose obvious purpose (check the site out) is to, among other things, incredibilize global warming (they only post one-sided articles that are denying global warming and credible scientifical results). They also seem to have a knack for nuclear power.

Their "information" is contributed to another site, which isn't quite as obviously biased, but appears to decredibilize scepticism about high CO2 levels in the air and rather focus on its alledged positive effects.

I'd also like to add that yes, climate variations from year to year do appear. The global warming, however, is a process that has gone over centuries, with temperatures rising above that of the last thousands of years.


Response to Edufer's second post:

Your allegations of water vapour compared to other greenhouse gases is valid in that water vapour is the major contributor. But your estimations of 95% of the effect are far off (as far as I know, it's closer to 50-60%), so you'll have to source that. As of yet, I haven't set myself into the issue of water vapour, so more comments about it will have to wait.

Both the "small ice age" and the "medieval warmth period" was local variations in temperature. The small ice age appeared at different times all over the globe, and the medieval warmth period appears to be a north-atlantic phenonemoa. Unlike the current global warming. Based on studies done for the IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm).

Now comes a far more interesting issue. You make accusations against the IPCC for being incredible, but your most vital arguments (aka your only) for proving this are incorrect.

- You alledge that the whole IPCC report was based on the research of MBH. This is very untrue. It is true that IPCC used Mann's data for the temperature estimations of the last millennium. But it is also true that the IPCC used several researches for the estimations, such as Jones, Briffa, other instrumental data and other sources. And it is also true that all of these confirmed Mann's Hockey Stick. It is also important to remember that in the comprehensive IPCC report, past temperature estimations are only a small part.

- You alledge that MBH published a corrigenda, decredibilizing their own reports and estimations. Untrue. It is true that MBH published a smaller corrigenda, but it is very important to know that they did never go away from their researches or temperature estimations. In other words, this "corrigenda" is a happening that is much over-hyped by a somewhat anti-warming media.

The rest of your post is speculations and accusations of the IPCC, none of which are supported, all of which seems to be a product of your own bias and dislike against them. The IPCC is the UN Intergovernal Climate Panel, its entire purpose is to give a neutral insight in climate problems. Accusing it of corruption is just another conspiracy theory.

Response to Andre:

I can't really see where you're getting at. To me, it seems as if though you use the general acceptance of global warming as an argument against it. You seem to believe that if a scientifical theory has few scientists supporting it, its credibility increases. Using that logic, we may conclude that evolution never occured, fairies exists, humanity is all a giant alien experiment, etc.

The rest of the post you use to compare global warming with religion. You have no reasons for doing so except your own bias against it. Global warming is well documented, unlike the allegations against it.

Accusing the IPCC of corruption is once again a product of your own bias against its results. It is especially hypocritical, concidering the many strong energy companies attepting to decredibilitize the results of all science that shows that these companies will have to invest more money in cleaning and reducing emissions.

 

[alty]

Corretc the title is very misleading i meant "GW a hoax?" anyway it got you looking.
Basically because my UNSUPPORTED opinion would have as much merit as yours.

This is a scientific question, and must be supported by enough credible authorities for the world to take seriously.
That's cool Alty, but show me some QUANTIFICATION and whilst you're at it, provide the SUPERIOR hypothesis that explains and predicts better than GHG theory..?

And who said it was "entirely" man-made or "only" cars that where the cause?...not me...and anyway, the man-made component is the only aspect we can deal with, therefore the question is how significant is the man-made component, and the answer is in the last few decades..SIGNIFICANT...see IPCC TAR 2001 and ongoing heat and weather records.

You need to learn some manners, nowhere did I use the words "SUPERIOR hypotheseis", I simply stated what I believe to be the case.

Now I'll do some research if you want but while you're waiting why don't you STFU!!

 

[Edufer]

And who said it was "entirely" man-made or "only" cars that where the cause?...not me...

hez7: there are some things we must clarify here. One, your profile show you are a virtual entity. No details whatsoever, and somebody that gives no details about himself while choosing to remain anonymous, raises lots of suspicion. If you are afraid of telling who you are and what you do, then you have something to hide. Do you wear a mask when going to parties?

Second: you posted a l-o-o-o-o-n-g list of links taken from that paranoiac website by Lion Kuntz, so we must assume <b>you share his views.</b> And Kuntz’s views say precisely that: man is guilty for anything that seems to go wrong on this planet, cars = demons, mankind = bunch of pigs, etc. So don’t throw the stone and hide your hand saying: “I didn’t do it”.

That's cool Alty, but show me some QUANTIFICATION and whilst you're at it, provide the SUPERIOR hypothesis that explains and predicts better than GHG theory..?

There are lots of QUANTIFICATION showing that the “hypothesis of global warming” is pure hoax. Please get this right: I am not saying that Earth has not warmed since 1860, as it did warm until recently. The warming was totally natural because it was recovering from an abnormal cold period caused by the occurrence of three “double solar minima” (Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton).

What's a fraud, a hoax, a swindle, is the political implications derived from an unproved theory! The Kyoto Protocol and all the S*** coming from it is just rubbish and a clear intention to clear the path for a World Government (ruled by clever corporations and financial institutions that are using the "greens" as their "useful idiots", in the same way as the Soviets used commies in western countries to destroy their democracies.

Third: a 30% increase of CO2 since 1750 means a 1.05% increase of greenhouse effect, and that’s not enough to cause the observed increase in temperature. There are many other facts governing Earth’s climate besides CO2, and most of them are much more important than the trifle effect that CO2 has on Earth’s temperature.

What's worse, they have wrong: CO2 increases lag temperature increases by 600-800 years, as shown by Monnin et al., research on Antarctica ice cores (dealing with Glacial Termination and temperature increases in ancient times). They showed that CO2 increase came 600-800 years after temperatures had risen in the Northen Hemisphere.

There are quite a lot of hypothesis that explain and predict the past, present and future climate on Earth better than the flawed GHG hypothesis. One of them is Solar activity. Who warms the planet? Not CO2, but the sun with all the energy that radiates. Who help the formation of clouds, a crucial factor in controlling albedo and precipitations? Not CO2 but solar wind that controls incoming cosmic radiation thus contributing to cloud formation.

There is not enough space to explain these hypothesis here, but they have been discussed in <b>Sciforums</b> for quite a long time before your arrival to the forum. If you take some time and dedicate it to study past threads then you will start to think in a different manner.

And IPCC TAR 2001 is an excellent piece of a political document – far, far away from scientific facts. Many scientists that actually led scientific teams that contributed and wrote entire chapters of the TAR 2001 complained angrily that TAR 2001 distorted everything they said, and presented conclusions opposing their own. (As Richard Lindzen – but he is paid by the Tobacco industry, according to Kuntz! So we must not believe him). So much for IPCC and TAR 2001.

I can point out to you (please don’t ask me!) all the corrections made to the original work that show how TAR 2001 is a total fraud. The original text by contributing scientists and the political correction and deletions introduced by the IPCC bureaucratic officials. It is boring, but highly revealing!

 

[Edufer]

In your first post, you link several times to mitosyfraudes, a site whose obvious purpose (check the site out) is to, among other things, incredibilize global warming (they only post one-sided articles that are denying global warming and credible scientifical results). They also seem to have a knack for nuclear power.

Indeed. Had you bother to check my profile in Sciforums (click over my handle “Edufer”) you could have seen all the information concerning me – contrary to yours that shows nothing. In my profile is clearly displayed my website, belonging to the <b>Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology.</b> In the “About Us” page you can read my entire <I>curriculum vitae</i>, so you see there is nothing I have to hide. We are quite proud of our website, that besides the great number of readers we get every day (in our Spanish version), has attracted lots of attention from the media in different countries because of our blunt style of saying things. As we say in Spanish, <b>“We have no hair in our tongue”</b>. And we continuously get complimentary emails from many respected and well know scientists from different countries, praising our stance on scientific matters – and advising to be careful with all those eco-terrorists that are on the loose. As late French volcanologist Haroun Tazieff said once: <b>"I have attracted innumerable enmities, some naïve and some from certain people of doubtful honesty. But a small number of friends of quality is worth more than a bunch of fans or a bunch of foes".</b>

I really have a knack for nuclear power because I happen to know a lot about it. When you get to now something quite deeply, you’ll surely will develop a “knack for it”. I also have a knack for <b>scientific accuracy and honesty</b>, something that set the IPCC and me on different sides of the street. I have been invited to lecture in many universities and schools in Argentina and Brazil, on the subject of “Myths and Frauds in Ecology” – and attend and lecture in a symposium in Spain (representing Latin America) sponsored by the Universidad Rey Carlos in Madrid. "Ecology: Myths and Frauds" happens to be the title of my book written back in 1994 and published freely in the internet. Money or power are not my motivations. Truth is what motivates me.

Now back to topic: the flawed Hockey Stick paper by Mann et al and their “corrigendum” in Nature magazine. After McIntyre and McKitrick exposed in “Energy & Environment” magazine the many flaws and wrong methodologies in Mann et al., paper, and the climate community was stirred by the findings, nature magazine asked Mann to publish a Corrigendum in their July 1st, 2004 issue, that is shown below:<dir><B>CORRIGENDUM</B>

<B>Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries</B>
Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes
Nature 392, 779–787 (1998).

It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly included in the Supplementary Information, or mistakenly left out. A small number of other corrections of the original listing include (see Table 1) corrections of the citations originally provided, or
corrections of the start years for certain series.

The full, corrected listing of the data is supplied as Supplementary Information to this corrigendum. Also provided as Supplementary Information are a documented archive of the complete data (instrumental and ‘proxy’ climate series) used in our original study, and an expanded description of the methodological details of our original study.

<b>None of these errors affect our previously published results</b>1. A

1. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779–787 (1998).
2. Bradley, R. S. & Jones, P. D. “Little ice age” summer temperature variations: their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends. The Holocene 3, 367–376 (1993).
3. Briffa, K. R. et al. Fennoscandian summers from AD500: temperature changes on short and long timescales. Clim. Dyn. 7, 111–119 (1992).
4. Stahle, D.W. et al. Experimental dendroclimatic reconstruction of the Southern Oscillation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 2137–2152 (1998).
5. Mann, M. E. et al. Global temperature patterns in past centuries: An interactive presentation. Earth Inter. 4-4, 1–29 (2000).

Supplementary Information accompanies this corrigendum on www.nature.com/nature </dir>As you can see, they ignore all criticism and as the ostrich, they bury their heads in the sand hoping their mistakes would disappear by magic. What’s more, they cite themselves in support of their work! Not very ethical.

So you should go and see what is all about these wrong methodology in Mann et al., paper reading McIntyre and McKitrick analysis of their famous paper The Hockey Stick. Go here: <a href=http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html>Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series</a>

They said in their Abstract:<dir><a href=http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee_openaccess.htm>"Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series"</a> Energy and Environment 14(6) 751-772.

<b>Abstract:</b>
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperaturefrom 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxconstruction a temperauret index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century andearly 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 -- is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.</dir>
If you believe Mann's statement <b>“None of these errors affect our previously published results”</B> is because you have not read McIntyre & McKitrick paper and compared it with Mann’s et al., Hockey Stick paper. if you red it, then you’ll agree that Mann is lying. The poor man has been put to shame in front of the scientific community and he refuses to let his arm go. He will die before recognizing he goofed in his study!

I don’t want to make this post too long, but there are some misconceptions you have regarding the warming issue. We’ll be reviewing that later.

 

[Andre]

Breton, Chapeau, you are a real master of fallacies. I stopped counting how many fallacies of exagaration, simplification, slippery slopes, straw man fallacies, ad hominems, opinions as facts, appeal to emotion. The list is too long. The average is well over two per sentence. Especially that exaggeration fallacy about existing fairies is simply too much. Very well done. I'm knocked off my feet. Really the vicars, rabbis, priests, imams can learn a lot from you, an outstanding sermon.

Incidentally, the biggest of all those master pieces is that you did not provide a singe piece of evidence but yet nullified all evidence against global warming, simply with stating that it is not true. Outstanding. Who would think of such a brilliant solution? Very nice

Now, you're the big winner of the discussion, no? And that makes global warming true, no? Because the truth is with the consensus majority and not with the Galileis, especially when there are oil compagnies around.

Now, perhaps this is an excellent opportunity for your coupe the grace and convert us, heathens, by demonstrating that proof that you refer to so abundantly. So, please enlighten us and provide one link, only a tiny one, to a formal scientific peer reviewed publication in a generally recognised neutral scientific magazine that proves unambiguously beyond any doubt that (anthropogenic) global warming happens, will continue to happen in the future and is mainly (over 50%) caused by emissions of greenhouse gasses. With so much evidence around that would not be too hard, no? Piece of cake.

 

[Andre]

By the way, weather is not climate, but it's not all warmth:

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040818.gtweather0818/BNStory/Technology/
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/4944174.html

Global cooling, everywhere

By STEPHEN STRAUSS

For Canadians who have spent the summer asking where summer has gone, new satellite observations show we're not alone.

According to an analysis by scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, July was the coldest worldwide since 1992. That year's cool spell was precipitated by the eruption of the Philippine volcano Pinatubo, which spewed 20 to 30 million tonnes of sunlight-deflecting dust into the atmosphere.

But scientists don't know why the Earth's thermostat has dropped this year.

In the Northern Hemisphere, July's temperatures were below the 20-year average by .14 degrees Celsius and in the Southern Hemisphere by .29 degrees. Both the tropics and Antarctica showed marked coolness.

cont'd

Minnesota farmers are braced for crop losses expected to total hundreds of millions of dollars after a devastating early frost during a lousy growing season.

"There's a lot of black vines out there ready to drop," Gary Pahl, a vegetable farmer in Apple Valley, said Monday.

The frost swept in Thursday, Friday and Saturday, with temperatures dipping as low as 20 degrees.

cont'd

Now don't start preaching that the ice age is coming.

 

[GuessWho]

After time, the earth should receive less heat supply from the sun which cannot have an infinite heat source thus in theory, causing the earth temperature to be cooler. Even if global warming exists, then maybe it should exist to help by balancing out the other cooling effect.

 

[Tristan]

Not in reference to any particular post or person, just a general warning because global warming is a HOT subject (haha, excuse the pun, had to do it). Remember to be civil and have respect. Again, this isnt in reference to any post or person in this thread, just a general "be nice" sign.

Cheers
T

 

[Norman]

Global Warming should be pretty apparent 1 billion years from now. If you're able and still have the capacity to speak, a daily temperature update would be greatly appreciated. Remember to use your Sunscreen, you're going to need it!

Yob Atta

 

[Andre]

Right, It's all hot air.

BTW, talking about hot and cold. How hot, for instance, is the Artic?

Based on the registration of the 14 weather stations, north of the 70 degree lattitude, that are still operational today. So the nineteen forties were at least at hot as it is today and the overall global warming of the North Pole was a staggering 0,15 degrees celsius in the last century.

 

[Edufer]

Why should we need a sunscreen, Atta Boy? Warming has nothing to do with UV rays. In case you want to know what to do when going outside (especially on the beach, where lots of skin area is exposed) read this short article: <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html>"Play It Safe: Take Sun at Noon!"</a>. Better be cautious than sorry.

 

[duendy]

also, don't forget Indigenous' peoples warning of these times. for example the Native American Hopi, who say we are in a time of the Great Purification, ie., that Nature comes to the fore as an effect of our ignore-ant descralization of Hir

even if clever clogs is right and global warming Is a hoax, it fukin shouldn't be! our predominant culture is the most blatant muthafukin greedy rapin shithouse ever hit planet Earth...what with the escalated power of its wepaons of mass destruction (talkin bout the West here, espesh USa as the superpower
also speaking personally as an observer of weather. here in the UK its been getting weirder for years. and i am noticing events around the world. recently an island sank

how many billion are they of us consuming frantic monkeys on this small globe again?

 

[Norman]

Why should we need a sunscreen, Atta Boy? Warming has nothing to do with UV rays. In case you want to know what to do when going outside (especially on the beach, where lots of skin area is exposed) read this short article: <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html>"Play It Safe: Take Sun at Noon!"</a>. Better be cautious than sorry.

Yea.........You're right. Save your money on the sunscreen and buy some anti-wrinkle cream instead. In 1 billion years from now you're going have to worry more about wrinkles than the UV rays from the ever expanding sun, that is if you're still around!

Yob Atta

 

[Edufer]

Not me in my present reincarnation. Perhaps in my 14,575th reincarnation I would worry about expanding suns, but for the time being I will focus on my present problems of feeding my wife, children and the dog.

Have you seen how there are people still believing in the presumed wisdom of ancient people - so wise that couldn't survive to these days, as did other societies less spiritual? Peace, and Love... :m:

 

[duendy]

Edufer.....i see though YOU still believe in the "presumed wisdom of ancient peoples" with your belief in "reincarnation" so what is your point, that seems incredibly mindboggingly westernocrentrically arrogant?

 

[Norman]

Not me in my present reincarnation. Perhaps in my 14,575th reincarnation I would worry about expanding suns, but for the time being I will focus on my present problems of feeding my wife, children and the dog.

Have you seen how there are people still believing in the presumed wisdom of ancient people - so wise that couldn't survive to these days, as did other societies less spiritual? Peace, and Love... :m:

I would suggest that you might want to cut back on your Vallium and Viagra intake at least for the present until you have been fully reincarnated or have reached some higher level of intelligence, which if you chose to pursue it, could become a lifetime goal for you.........

Yob Atta

 

[Edufer]

Norman and Duendy: you boys show a total lack of sense of humor. I erroneously assumed that both of you were grown up people that had already realized that reincarnation and the wisdom of ancient societies were just speculations popular among people with high degree of neurosis (or lots of spare time) in search of higher spiritual levels stemming from the so called "superior oriental cultures". Those cultures have provided so far a lot of gurus and other kind of phonies and hoxters (Sai Baba, etc), and many way of getting fast money from suckers (Feng Shui, I Ching, Tai Chi, etc).

I was wrong. My apologies. There is no reincarnation - as far as I or any other people KNOW.

This will be hard for you to believe, but I have taken not even an aspirin in the last 10 years - leave aside valiums or viagras that you seem to know a lot about them.

And my level of intelligence is not for you to judge - not for a person lacking sense of humor (and posting idiocies as you have done). Smile, boys, smile! A smile is a better cure for sore spirits than any known drug (including marijuana - have a puff :m: ).

 

[duendy]

edufer....i have my own ganga thanks.....dont know, at the mo, whether i'd want to share no peace spliff with you.we shall see ..

i also have no porbs with a sense of humour. thing is kid, you dont seem so funny. only have a larf when someone makes me laugh, or i think of funny or whatever, and believe me its surreal...

you are mixed up wid your ancients too. have you read Masks of authoritarian Power, ? i haaaave. its all about what your goin on about. but even THAt dont slag off Native American. have you no self respect?...not saying the sun shines outta their arses. but they've got a lot to be pissed off about. AND their relationship with Nature is better than what replaced it

did you know many have to live on toxic land? white mens shit?

 

[Roman]

It's funny how there is a global trend of warming, yet Edufer so adamantly denies it. Go grab the latest National Geographic and explain to me all those pictures. Go ahead, offer up a hypothesis. Explain the melting of sea ice. Explain why Inupiat has dozens of words for ice, but not a single one for a rapid thaw.

Global Warming, the process in which the globe heats up, is undeniably occuring. You cannot deny the enormous amount of empirical evidence demonstrating that sea levels rise, ice melts, and droughts worsen at ever increasing rates.

Now, I notice that since determining weather is not as scientifically pure the physics of a pendulum, skeptics of GW are quick to point out that prediction is not entirely accurate. I wholeheartedly agree. This is, afterall, the field that discovered chaos. For those of you unaware of what chaos is: A system whose long term behaviour is unpredictable, tiny changes in the accuracy of the starting value rapidly diverge to anywhere in its possible state space. There can however be a finite number of available states, so statistical prediction can still be useful.

That means that even a 1,03% increase in CO2 causes change. Many of the effects of global warming cause positive feedback. Increased temperature decreases ice and snow sheets, causing a decrease in reflected solar radiation. Melted snow and ice releases more greenhouse gasses, further raising tempratures. Forest fires release more CO2. And so on.

What I'm saying, Edufer, is that GW is complicated. It's ridiculous to expect any human agency to perfectly spell it out for you. But it is happening.

The most significant rise in sea level has been in the past century. A study of 2000 year old Roman fisheries in Italy, after proper adjustment for continental drift, find them to be about 13 cm below current sea levels. Since sea levels were recorded starting around 1900, and have increased only 1 mm to 2mm a year. That means that the incease in sea level of 13 cm has occured sometime in this century. New Scientist August 14-20, 2004
If the sea increased 13 cm in 100 years, where did all that water come from? I believe it was from glaciers and other meltoff.

1000 years ago, grapes could be grown in England. However, Atlantic Europe has had a converse response to many global weather shifts caused by the corriolis effect and transfer of cold and hot water in the midatlantic.

As for the ancients, there are some striking examples of their wisdom such as The Art of War, the Greek maths, Hammurabi's justice, and the Indian Vedas.
The ancient Indians had an excellent grasp on medical idealogies long before the West realized that sickness was indeed environmental.
Yogi philosophies of mind and body are repeatedly demonstrated true in Western scientific experiments.

Don't be so quick to judge, Edufer.

 

[Tristan]

Funny how I give a simple "be nice" warning and then everyone starts cat fighting.
Consider this the first warning. Since the other was like a pre-warning... ya, a PRE-warning!