The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

Poptech · May 28, 2011

mbig said:
On the contrary. There is plenty of debate on entries (BOTH sides) and plenty of well-researched and footnoted entries.

Can anyone edit Wikipedia at any time? How do I know at anytime I look at a Wikipedia page it is has not been edited incorrectly?

Unlike the Wack Jobs you foist on your Conspiracy Blog.

Explain how Debunking 911 Conspiracy theories, 2012 conspiracy theories, Moon Landing conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories makes the website a "conspiracy blog". You do understand the difference between using blogging software for a website and an actual blog?

Oh I see. You just "pin" them to the uh.. uh.. [one-man] 'Forum' and therefore they're not on your 'blog'.

How is a forum with 186 registered members a "one man" forum? Yes a post in the forums is not a post on the website. I realize your computer illiteracy makes it impossible for you to understand the difference.

Popular Technology -> HIV/AIDs Controversy

So to be honest (You need a definition on that) YOU ARE Foisting this preposterous Bullcrap- just putting it on different sections of your .. ahem.. 'Blog'.
aka, one-man-forum.

I made a post compiling all the skeptics relating to the HIV/AIDS Controversy <--- Notice the title. The forum is not a blog, repeating this insanity just makes you look absolutely 100% computer illiterate.

I am not sure what your obsession is with my discussion forums.

And I might add that garbage is despicable and a disservice to society. There is NO real scientific 'controversy' on AIDS

So the credentialed scientists and medical doctors cited and the over 40 peer-reviewed papers on the subject don't exist?

You insist on calling your ONE-man shows 'forums'. It's JUST YOU and YOUR opinion.

I insist on calling a forum - a forum because that is the correct term for what it is, it also makes you look like a computer illiterate as ANYONE who is computer literate knows the difference is night and day and one has NOTHING to do with the other. It is not just me and my opinion there are 186 members (more at one point but I deleted inactive accounts).

Which is so whacked, it will always, and Again, EFFECTIVELY be a blog.

No it can't because discussion forums like this one have NOTHING To do with blogs. Please, please keep embarrassing yourself.

These 'definitions' are in this case the classic distinction without a difference.

ROFLMAO! Only a computer illiterate would believe that.

Not to mention, ie, the Goebbelsian "Pinning" your own 20 string starters on top, effectively ECLIPSING and real discussion and dicktating the agenda. (whether or not there's even a single other poster around)

Those are MY forums, I can pin whatever I want. The administrator of any forum dictates whatever they want. Are you new to the Internet or something?

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s

His 'rebuttal' doesn't hold up, his "450" list was Eviscerated.

No it doesn't big boy and it is not 450 anymore, it is OVER 900. The eco-terrorist's website is full of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments.

Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

Does E&E appear in the ISI? The liar and eco-terrorist Greenfyre says no.

mbig · May 28, 2011

Poptech said:
Can anyone edit Wikipedia at any time? How do I know at anytime I look at a Wikipedia page it is has not been edited incorrectly?

Go to the discussions tab. It's at least as instructive as the entry.
Read and learn.
Don't be intentionally computer illiterate.

How is a forum with 186 registered members a "one man" forum? Yes a post in the forums is not a post on the website. I realize your computer illiteracy makes it impossible for you to understand the difference.

When ALL the entries in some sections are by Andrew.. we get the picture.
How many registrants is a goofy Strawman.
Poor try.

I made a post compiling all the skeptics relating to the HIV/AIDS Controversy <--- Notice the title. The forum is not a blog, repeating this insanity just makes you look absolutely 100% computer illiterate.
..
No it can't because discussion forums like this one have NOTHING To do with blogs. Please, please keep embarrassing yourself.
ROFLMAO! Only a computer illiterate would believe that.
..

Again, you necessarily ignore the fact you are using your [cough] 'forum' to Foist outrageous bullcrap.
Forum/Blog.. take your pick
it's ALL Your ideas and YOUR website.. and YOU foisting that despicable trash.

and For the second/third time, despite me showing your are EFFECTIVELY using the forum as Blog (which you UNwittingly admit with pinning etc), you disingenuousy/obtusely try and use technical definitions to try and separate what you are EFFECTIVELY doing which is meaningless/nonresponsive.
But it seems like you finally are getting what I'm saying and backing off despite the moronic repetition of 'computer illiterate'.

So the credentialed scientists and medical doctors cited and the over 40 peer-reviewed papers on the subject don't exist?

40 out of how many? 40,000?
Your usual Fallacious and disingenuous trick.
(like 850 of 850,000 climate papers)

Those are MY forums, I can pin whatever I want. The administrator of any forum dictates whatever they want. Are you new to the Internet or something?

Exactly!
Thanks for Conceding MY point.
You Run the forums like a Blog. YOUR opinion, Your pinning. some sections 100% YOU.
Giant BLUNDER on your part.. and after wasting all those other posts/words denying it.

No it doesn't big boy and it is not 450 anymore, it is OVER 900. The eco-terrorist's website is full of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments.

Yeah.
"900"
He busted Poptart on that too.
Thanks for giving me the reason to post it:

Poptart gets burned again, 900 times « Greenfyre’s\

Just over a year ago I did two posts documenting at length that uber climate change Denier PopTech’s (aka PopTart) list of “skeptic” science was blithering nonsense of the worst kind:

Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s
450 more lies from the climate change Deniers « Greenfyre’s

Those who have any experience with PopTech are well aware that he never lets inconsequential trivia like facts or reality influence his beliefs, so you won’t be surprised that he kept adding to his Septic List and finally managed to double it “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm ” (simple math for PopTech, 2 times 0 is still 0).

Now Carbon Brief has had a look at the expanded list and brings us:

Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil
“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

Another earlier approach to PopTech’s list was that of SkepticalScience in “Meet The Denominator.” In this approach Honeycutt looked at the number of papers discussing climate change (850,000+) and compared it to PopTech’s (then) 850.

After some adjustment he concluded that even if PopTech’s sample was valid (which it clearly is Not) it represented a mere 0.45% of the literature on climate change.

This approach has to be understood with caution in that if there was even one solid paper that truly undermined climate change science (although that is well nigh impossible), it would still be more than enough. However, what this approach does demonstrate is that PopTech’s allegation that his list represents a significant body of the science is laughable.

In fact, given that PopTech is Trolling the literature for anything that fits his perception despite being:
*not actually peer reviewed, and/or
*known to be false, and/or
*irrelevant, and/or
*out of date (no longer relevant), and/or
*not supportive of climate change Denial
it is quite surprising that he has only found 900. Given those criteria 9,000 or 90,000 should easily be possible. (thanks to JM for the reminder)

Update: 28/4 See also “Anti-AGW papers debunked” for some of the papers on PopTart’s list.

Carbon Brief

The second Carbon Brief post documents in more detail the same sort of abuses as the earlier list, ie papers being irrelevant, known to be wrong, misrepresented etc. The first post shows how 90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists.

Carbon brief quite correctly notes that merely identifying the funding source for the Deniers is not evidence that they are wrong (that would be a circumstantial ad hominem), however:

It does put the lie to the claim that “skepticism” is widespread among scientists, (a few dozen out of many millions), and
given that the fraudulent nature of the list has already been documented (as before and as per 2nd post), it does perhaps explain why this tiny handful of people might be motivated to producing this nonsense.
[......]

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/Poptart-gets-Burned-again-900-times/

Catawba · May 28, 2011

ksu_aviator said:
So what caused the glaciers in Alaska to start retreating in the 1740's? Any one? Any one? Could it be natural causes? I doubt it was the internal combustion engine.

Example of your logic failure ~ Because nature starts brush fires sometimes, man could not possibly be responsible for starting brush fires.

Poptech · May 28, 2011

mbig said:
Go to the discussions tab. It's at least as instructive as the entry. Read and learn.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I am well aware of how Wikipedia works now answer the questions.

When ALL the entries in some sections are by Andrew.. we get the picture. How many registrants is a goofy Strawman. Poor try.

Yes I am the most prolific poster that does not make it a one man forum nor is it a strawman argument.

Again, you necessarily ignore the fact you are using your [cough] 'forum' to Foist outrageous bullcrap. Forum/Blog.. take your pick it's ALL Your ideas and YOUR website..

Yes I use a discussion forum to compile various things and yes it is my forum. I thought we established this already?

and For the second/third time, despite me showing your are EFFECTIVELY using the forum as Blog (which you UNwittingly admit with pinning etc), you dishonestly/obtusely try and use technical definitions to try and separate what you are EFFECTIVELY doing with meaningless/nonresponsive technical definitions.
But it seems like you finally are getting what I'm saying and backing off despite the moronic repetition of 'computer illiterate'.

You haven't demonstrated anything except your computer illiteracy by referring to a forum as a blog. The forum is not being used as a blog because it cannot be. Invision Power Board is "community forum software". Pinning topics is a forum feature. The definitions are exact and I am not even using the blogging software as a blog.

40 out of how many? 40,000? Your usual Fallacious and disingenuous trick.
(like 850 of 850,000 climate papers)

There is no 850,000 climate papers - that is a number that someone who is google scholar illiterate fabricated.

Exactly! Thanks for Conceding MY point. You Run the forums like a Blog. YOUR opinion, Your pinning. some sections 100% YOU. Giant BLUNDER on your part.. and after wasting all those other posts/words denying it.

I didn't concede anything. I stated a fact. I run my forums like my forums which has nothing to do with a blog. Repeating the same computer illiterate nonsense is only digging your hole deeper. Discussion forums have nothing to do with blogs. Pinning topics is a forum feature. Member are free to start their own topics, which they do, that is how forums work.

Yeah. "900" Thanks for giving me the reason to post it:

Poptart gets burned again, 900 times « Greenfyre’s

MrSmall, the eco-terrorist did no such thing,

Rebuttal to "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"

Poptech · May 28, 2011

Rebuttal to "Poptart gets burned again, 900 times"

Greenfyre continues his dishonest and desperate attempt to attack the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list with the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments that have all been refuted ad nauseam. He is so dishonest he refuses to even make corrections to things that have been shown irrefutably not be true. Would you expect any less from an alarmist?

The Truth About Greenfyre

1. Greenfyre begins by referencing his previous rambling blog posts of lies that have been completely refuted,

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"

Rebuttal to "Poptart's 450 climate change Denier lies"

His absolute lack of integrity is demonstrated by the fact that he has never updated his original posts to correct any of the lies that were pointed out to him. In comparison the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list has had many corrections to it to fix various legitimate criticisms. As an example of his dishonesty; his original posts still contain the same lies that, Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are included in the peer-reviewed paper count. Anyone with an elementary ability to count knows this is irrefutably not true.

2. Greenfyre then references the nonsense from the Carbon Brief that has also been completely refuted,

Rebuttal to "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil"

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

3. In an apparent attempt to demonstrate he is as computer illiterate as the authors at Skeptical Science, Greenfyre references their worthless "analysis",

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

Not only can he not count to 450 he apparently cannot count past 1000 either, as he is unable to provide the 1001 result for any of Rob's Google Scholar searches.

4. Greenfyre repeats the same lies that have already been refuted,

Lie - not actually peer reviewed,
Truth - He fails to support this statement. Every counted paper and listed journal is peer-reviewed.

Lie - known to be false
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are known to be false and all published criticisms have been refuted by the authors.

Lie - irrelevant
Truth - He fails to support this statement. None of the papers are irrelevant.

Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant),
Truth - He fails to support this statement. The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 650 papers published since 2000 on the list.

Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial.
Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack. All the papers support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

5. Greenfyre repeats the same lie from the Carbon Brief, "The first post shows how 90% of the authors of these papers are the same tiny cabal, all part of the Exxon stable of Denier scientists."

It is falsely implied that if a scientist went to a meeting for coffee and donuts hosted by an organization that in the last 20 years received a $5 donation from a fossil fuel company that scientist is now "funded by the fossil fuel industry".

(1) Greenfyre fails to provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating direct fossil fuel company funding for any scientist.

(2) Greenfyre fails to prove that the same scientist has received enough energy company donations to sustain all their research over the years.

(3) Greenfyre fails to prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding AGW due to a monetary donation and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the donation.

In an article titled, "Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil" from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace "researcher" Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as "linked to" [funded by] ExxonMobil.

To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

4. Please include any additional comment on the article,

Their responses follow,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

ect...

Poptech · May 28, 2011

MrSmall, I can do this all day. Desperately using Google will not help you as I have refuted all the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments you can come up with. It helps to actually read the notes on the list as this is all made very clear.

mbig · May 28, 2011

You have 'disagreed' with alot.
But haven't "refuted" ANYTHING.
The net littered with your Destruction and Bannings from websites, necessitated your obsessive denial and what can only be described as Spam.
Have a party:
http://www.google.com/search?source...gc.r_pw.&fp=19a59778de2c65e2&biw=1562&bih=731

and of course, in PANIC/first responder here:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Stronger and Stronger | The Intersection | Discover Magazine
by Chris Mooney

Courtesy of Rick Piltz, I learn of a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that powerfully demonstrates just how convinced scientists are that global warming is real and human caused. Indeed, this paper, entitled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” looks at the relationship between scientific prominence, amount of work published in the field, and acceptance of the scientific consensus. Findings:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Those of us who follow this issue closely won’t be surprised–but the results mean that journalists who have given a lot of weight to climate “skeptics” have some ‘splaining to do. Essentially, this paper seems to be suggesting that they got the wrong “experts.”

Incidentally, given how closely this study hits home, I would expect it to be attacked–just as Naomi Oreskes’ famous paper “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” was.

June 22nd....
81 Responses to “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Stronger and Stronger”

1. Poptech Says:
[.......]
Blah
denial
blah denial
[.......]

In the face of OVERWHELMING evidence of people who know what they're talking about.

I'm done with now.
thx for being my foil.
bye.

DemonMyst · May 28, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Man has only been recording, with scientific instruments for what? 150 or so years.

Greenland was once actually Green, arable land that was settled by the Vikings, those areas are now under glaciers and permafrost.

There was a Midevil Warm Period.

There was a little ice age that followed the MWP.

CO2 Concentrations have been, as to the best of our science to determine, far higher (like over 1000ppm) in the past.

Man's contribution towards the rising detected levels of CO2 are less then WHAT percent of of the total atmospheric gas make up?

Right?? But if man has only been recording all this stuff for about a 150 years or so ago?? How do you know about some midevil warm period??

It strikes me as odd that you would make the arguement that man has only had scientific instruments for about 150 years and then talk about events that happened way before man had any scientific instraments...

You also provide no links to back up your details, which are basically meaningless to begin with because man has only been recording with scientific instruments for what?? 150 years or so??

DemonMyst · May 28, 2011

ksu_aviator said:
So what caused the glaciers in Alaska to start retreating in the 1740's? Any one? Any one? Could it be natural causes? I doubt it was the internal combustion engine.

I'll go with everyone else.. What logic are you using?? So some glaciers retreated in 1740's?? That has what to do with global warming?? Are you like one of those people that says "Global warming is fake, look there was a cold day in New York.'??

So to use your own logic.. There was some really hot days in Las Vegas... I guess that makes global warming real eh??

Way to go KSU.. Way to go..

DemonMyst · May 28, 2011

While I don't want to get into the arguement of who is or isn't a climate scientist, mainly cause that is actually kinda stupid..

As for myself.. I tend to look at global warming from a view that I can actually see.. Like the satelite images of the shrinking polar ice cap.. Nobody can deny that it is happening and all can see that it is.. The shrinking Greenland Glaciers, again we can see it happening.. The dying coral reef attributed to an increase in water temperature.. For anyone who has ever managed a salt water aquarium.. They know that temperature can be an important factor for a healthy tank.. Or the great barrier reef as in this case..

How bout the last big snow storm that happened this year.. This mammoth storm that covered over half of the entire U.S. The flooding of the Mississippi River.. The record out break of tornados.. And not just little ones.. Big tornados.. Record hurricane seasons that we have had in the last decade.. Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever.. Kent Washington is about 20 miles south of Seattle.. My state broke records almost the entire summer last year.. Southern California, parts of Arizona, and other places have faced drought conditions for a least a decade..

I could go on and on and on.. But it all paints a picture.. And these are just events that mostly have to do with our nation.. Globally there are countless other things.. There are a number of lakes that have just evaporated due to heat and lack of rain.. Some are much smaller than they were, and other are simply gone..

AFRICA: Drying, Drying, Disappearing… - IPS ipsnews.net

So?? To me Global warming is something that I can see and observe.. It is all around us.. I live near a moutian peaks.. Mt. Rainier.. It is estimated that in the next 5 to 10 years, it may totally lose it's glaciers..

The big question is?? Is man responsible?? Well.. I can't see how dumping trillions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere day after day is a good thing for the planet?? I can't see how clear cutting countless acres of forest helps the planet clean the air?? So not only are we poluting the planet?? We are deminishing it's ability to clean itself.. So yes.. I think man is greatly responsible..

Is CO2 a pollutant?? This is actually a dumb question.. Anything is a pollutant if there is to much of it.. And since mankind has all but destroyed a large portion of the earths ability to deal with CO2.. Yes.. CO2 is a pollutant.. I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise..

As for who is or who isn't a climate scientist?? I really don't care and fail to see why anyone would.. The evidence supporting global warming is as plane as day.. It isn't like some lengthy equation or some mold growing in some test tube in a lab that nobody sees.. It is out there.. Where you live.. We see it on the news.. We see it on the internet.. We talk about it here.. And most of all.. You can go outside and see it for yourself.. I guess for some, you just have to know what your looking at..

Poptech · May 28, 2011

mbig said:
You have 'disagreed' with alot. But haven't "refuted" ANYTHING.

Incorrect, I have refuted every lie, misinformation and strawman argument put out. It is not a "disagreement" that Energy & Environment is indexed in the the ISI, it is an irrefutable fact,

Thompson Reuters Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal

Something your eco-terrorist friend can't figure out.

The net littered with your Destruction and Bannings from websites, necessitated your obsessive denial and what can only be described as Spam.

No "destruction" but yes I have been banned from various alarmist sites and those who prefer censorship over free speech (people like you). As seen here your lies, misinformation and strawman arguments have all been thoroughly dispatched since I am allowed to post. I haven't "spammed" anything - another word you don't know the definition of.

and of course, in PANIC/first responder here:

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Stronger and Stronger

In the face of OVERWHELMING evidence of people who know what they're talking about.

No panic and no overwhelming evidence of anything just complete and total refutation,

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

You seem very good at bringing up computer illiterate sources. :lol:

Poptech · May 28, 2011

DemonMyst said:
Are you like one of those people that says "Global warming is fake, look there was a cold day in New York.'??

You just used the argument that a hot day is evidence of global warming,

"Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever.. Kent Washington is about 20 miles south of Seattle."

I'll go with everyone else.. What logic are you using?? So some glaciers retreated in 1740's?? That has what to do with global warming??

His point is that the warming was not caused by hydrocarbon use,

Thus the recent mild warming is likely a recovery from the little ice age,

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu

A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them

sawyerloggingon · May 28, 2011

World Climate Report » Greenland Climate: Now vs. Then, Part I. Temperatures

Good site if you are a bit of a wonk.

RadicalModerate · May 28, 2011

I guess those suckers in the US military are just a bunch of whining, misinformed liberal hippies, too.

Deuce · May 28, 2011

Poptech said:
You just used the argument that a hot day is evidence of global warming,

"Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever.. Kent Washington is about 20 miles south of Seattle."

His point is that the warming was not caused by hydrocarbon use,

Thus the recent mild warming is likely a recovery from the little ice age,

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age
(Natural Science, Volume 2, Number 7, pp. 1211-1224, November 2010)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Solar forcing increased from the LIA until about the middle of last century. During the last half of the 1900's, however, solar output has not increased but it is during this period that the most rapid warming was seen.
http://politicalclimate.files.wordp...vs-solar-activity-total-solar-irradiance2.gif

Renae · May 28, 2011

mbig said:
We just had a whole string based on that same FALLACY. LCD. Lowest common denominator being the barrier to believe or not believe something is true or not.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...ientific-proof-not-just-educated-guesses.html

This is a Wack Job Blog run by 4 ostensible computer engineers (NOT climatolgists or scientologists)
who just go by their first names!

Andrew, the editor
Doug
Karl
Mike

Here's some more of Andrew's anti-establishment, Conspiratorial ideas.
Popular Technology -> The Sciences
Including the absurd... HIV doesn't cause AIDS.. among with countless other floaters.

Tho called populartechnology.net it's a Conspiracy website more in line with 'whatreallyhappened' etc.
A Clearing house for Nut bag ideas.
PopulISTtechnology would be closer, but still impart a technical expertise these Clowns don't have.

The guy that runs the IPCC, he is not a Climate Scientist, yet you think he's right for the job.

Deuce has ZERO meteorological training or experience, yet I with my years of real world experience you ignore. Amazing how you only care about peoples credentials when it's convenient.

DemonMyst · May 28, 2011

Poptech said:
You just used the argument that a hot day is evidence of global warming,

"Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever.. Kent Washington is about 20 miles south of Seattle."

No.. That was one of many examples I gave as to how people can see global warming where they live.. Don't pick a single portion of my post and then make a bogus claim.. I also mentioned lakes in Africa.. That is far from Kent Wa.

How bout the last big snow storm that happened this year.. This mammoth storm that covered over half of the entire U.S. The flooding of the Mississippi River.. The record out break of tornados.. And not just little ones.. Big tornados.. Record hurricane seasons that we have had in the last decade.. Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever.. Kent Washington is about 20 miles south of Seattle.. My state broke records almost the entire summer last year.. Southern California, parts of Arizona, and other places have faced drought conditions for a least a decade..

Don't take a single sentence out of a paragraph and accuse me of using inappropriate logic.. It only serves to make yourself look bad or stupid.. So no.. I did not use that arguement.. Not even close.. Way to Fox News edit my post and change it's meaning.. Rupert would be proud of your editing skills..

As for graph?? You will have to explain that to all the mountian peaks in the cascade range.. Not to mention the rocky mountains and other places.. So forgive me if I believe your graph is a bunch of bull pucky!! Glaciers don't grow and the Polar ice cap melt.. Or the Permafrost in Alaska melts.. Are you actually going to attempt to argue selective melting?? Give me a break..

Dr. Akasofu: Not locally, of course. The weather is the source of CO2, and CO2 spreads very quickly. So, in about two months, it spreads all around the Earth.

With statements like the above?? How can anyone give any credibility to Syun-Ichi Akasofu?? The weather is the source of CO2?? Is he an idiot?? Weather is not the source of CO2.. We are.. Animals are.. Our industry is, our cars are.. How lame can this moron be?? The weather is the source of CO2??

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/01/sarahpalin.climatechange

Hmmm.. Seems he also has some funding comming from big oil.. Well so much for this guy.. NEXT!!!

Deuce · May 28, 2011

MrVicchio said:
The guy that runs the IPCC, he is not a Climate Scientist, yet you think he's right for the job.

Deuce has ZERO meteorological training or experience, yet I with my years of real world experience you ignore. Amazing how you only care about peoples credentials when it's convenient.

So maybe you can use that real world experience to show me your calculations on the impact of increasing CO2 by 40%.

ksu_aviator · May 28, 2011

Deuce said:
Lung cancer existed before cigarettes. Would you say that proves cigarettes don't cause lung cancer?

Catawba said:
Example of your logic failure ~ Because nature starts brush fires sometimes, man could not possibly be responsible for starting brush fires.

DemonMyst said:
I'll go with everyone else.. What logic are you using?? So some glaciers retreated in 1740's?? That has what to do with global warming?? Are you like one of those people that says "Global warming is fake, look there was a cold day in New York.'??

So to use your own logic.. There was some really hot days in Las Vegas... I guess that makes global warming real eh??

Way to go KSU.. Way to go..

You guys are way to predictable. Do you really think that I base my opinion off of one micro-sentence? Take a look at the science behind global climate change.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...6108-truth-global-warming.html#post1059110559

The reality is that CO2 is one of the least efficient gases when it comes to keeping radiation in the atmosphere. As was stated earlier, methane is the gas we need to be worried about and it is not emitted in substantial quantities by any vehicle.

So, to answer your questions, I come down on the side of reason. If the climate is supposed to be changing and it is changing and it is no different than the past then it becomes the responsibility of the climate change chicken littles to prove their delusional conspiracy.

mbig · May 28, 2011

MrVicchio said:
The guy that runs the IPCC, he is not a Climate Scientist, yet you think he's right for the job.

Deuce has ZERO meteorological training or experience, yet I with my years of real world experience you ignore. Amazing how you only care about peoples credentials when it's convenient.

MY article cited PNAS/Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Concluding 97%-98% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC on Global Warming.

That was the Meat of my reply. Not your Fallacious floater of whether I approve of the head of the IPCC.

Again, As YEC is to evolution, Blind GOPism is to Real Climate science. Theologic critics.

Poptech · May 28, 2011

RadicalModerate said:
I guess those suckers in the US military are just a bunch of whining, misinformed liberal hippies, too.

So you accept the U.S. Military as credentialed climate scientists? Who knew?

Oh wait is that supposed to convince "gun-toten", "god-fearing" social conservatives to support your position? My bad, carry on.

Poptech · May 28, 2011

mbig said:
MY article cited PNAS/Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Concluding 97%-98% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC on Global Warming.

A paper that only a computer illiterate would cite,

Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS

The conclusions of the paper are worthless because they are based on erroneous results and cherry picking.

Poptech · May 28, 2011

Deuce said:
Solar forcing increased from the LIA until about the middle of last century. During the last half of the 1900's, however, solar output has not increased but it is during this period that the most rapid warming was seen.

This is incorrect,

Cosmic Rays have very good correlation as well,

Deuce · May 28, 2011

Poptech said:
This is incorrect,

Cosmic Rays have very good correlation as well,

Um. Solar output did not increase.

Re: Svensmark's work:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf

between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase

Furthermore, the cosmic ray -> cloud link doesn't establish all that well.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

However, the cloud cover is delayed by more than half a year relative to the cosmic rays. According to current theory (e.g. Yu and Turco, 2000) the build-up of cloud condensation nuclei is completed within less than a day after an increase of GCRI. Since the lifetime of these cloud condensation nuclei only amounts to a few days a possible formation of clouds must take place within this span of time and not several months later. Therefore, the cloud response to a change in GCRI should be practically instantaneous when viewed on the time scale of Fig. 2. (3) Another difficulty is the physical interpretation of low cloud cover data based exclusively on infrared measurements from satellites: most low clouds which are positioned below higher clouds cannot be detected from satellites, and since the range of variation of the different cloud types only amounts to a few percent of the respective cloud cover, an inaccuracy of a few percent could entirely spoil the apparent agreement shown in Fig. 2a.

Svensmark's work showed promise but the correlation began to break down as more data was gathered.

Finally, cosmic ray influence on cloud cover cannot explain some of the patterns of temperature increase we've seen - a cooling stratosphere and a faster warming trend in the arctic.

Deuce · May 28, 2011

ksu_aviator said:
You guys are way to predictable. Do you really think that I base my opinion off of one micro-sentence? Take a look at the science behind global climate change.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...6108-truth-global-warming.html#post1059110559

The reality is that CO2 is one of the least efficient gases when it comes to keeping radiation in the atmosphere. As was stated earlier, methane is the gas we need to be worried about and it is not emitted in substantial quantities by any vehicle.

So, to answer your questions, I come down on the side of reason. If the climate is supposed to be changing and it is changing and it is no different than the past then it becomes the responsibility of the climate change chicken littles to prove their delusional conspiracy.

Changes in orbital factors and solar output are easily monitored. They do not account for the temperature trend we're seeing.

Methane is indeed a serious concern. Large amounts of it are starting to be released from melting permafrost. Methane may end up acting as a powerful feedback.

So why did you post the ridiculous one-liner about a single instance of ice melting in a single location when you knew it was faulty logic and not a valid argument?

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

Active member

onomatopoeic

Disappointed Evolutionist

Active member

Active member

Active member

onomatopoeic

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Outer space potato man

Well-known member

Outer space potato man

Democrats are the fascists

onomatopoeic

Active member

Active member

Active member

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency