The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

[RadicalModerate]

Maybe you have a hard time reading, I said all the scientific errors were corrected. That means the graphs. Carl Wunsch was never taken out of context he was just later deleted out of the film as it was not worth his inclusion being used to dishonestly attack the rest of the presentation.

The fraudulent hockey stick (MBH98, 99) has been discredited by anyone who has any remote idea about the subject,

What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics, April 4, 2005)
Caspar and the Jesus paper (PDF) (Andrew W. Montford, B.Sc. Chemistry, August 11, 2008)
Auditing Temperature Reconstructions of the Past 1000 Years (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, August 20, 2008)

Poptech, here's a list of 162 old climate change denialist arguments and 162 rebuttals, explaining the vast amount of science behind climate change research and findings.

Feel free to address some or all of them. And, of course, I'm still waiting for your reply to why the US military takes climate change seriously when it's a "lie".

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I think there is evidence of global warming, but if I were to say watch "An Inconvenient Truth" where a lot of this evidence has been compiled to far better effect than I ever could, you would probably immediately scoff me and the video of as "liberal drivel" or something of the like. In which case it would probably be both sides who have a knack for completely blowing off anything presented to them to defend their own ideas, as well as linking them to fanatical religious sects and such.

You are right about the hypocrite part though. A lot of them cry about global warming but do nothing to moderate it. However, on the fair side, it is not the average citizens emissions that are contributing to significant increases of greenhouse gases but high scale industrial activity.

I am confused. If it’s not average citizens contributing to global warming why are Obama and the democrats forcing us into little cars? Why do they regulate emissions in everything from chainsaws to lawn mowers to BBQs? Why do they want to make us drive electric cars? Why are they banning Einstein’s light bulb? Why do they tell us to put a sweater on instead of turning heat up? Why solar and windmills to power our homes?
Here’s the thing, if you believe we are warming the planet with our life style quit living our life style. Don’t drive a car; don’t heat your house etc. Practice what you preach. Don’t point the finger at big oil big timber big mining big business. Point your finger at the mirror. Take some responsibility for yourself, quit whining.

 

[ksu_aviator]

I don't think anyone ever made the claim that human activity is the only factor in temperature changes.

They absolutely have.

 

[Deuce]

They absolutely have.

Find me one single instance of this.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I am confused...why are Obama and the democrats forcing us into little cars?

I'm sorry, what laws says we must drive "little cars"?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I'm sorry, what laws says we must drive "little cars"?

No law, just the president telling a guy complaining about high gas prices, "sell your old clunker buy a new car". Like in this obama eonomy thats easy to do. LOL

 

[RadicalModerate]

No law, just the president telling a guy complaining about high gas prices, "sell your old clunker buy a new car". Like in this obama eonomy thats easy to do. LOL

Obama suggesting something to one guy constitutes him and all Democrats forcing us to buy little cars? I'm confused, how exactly does that work? '

Oh, you mean, he wants that one guy to tell three friends to buy a new car, and then those three friends tell three friends and on and on, like a pyramid scheme? Or is it more direct, like he was tasking the one guy to get the whole nation to buy a new car, is that what you mean?

Sorry I'm not following...

 

[Deuce]

I am confused. If it’s not average citizens contributing to global warming why are Obama and the democrats forcing us into little cars? Why do they regulate emissions in everything from chainsaws to lawn mowers to BBQs? Why do they want to make us drive electric cars? Why are they banning Einstein’s light bulb? Why do they tell us to put a sweater on instead of turning heat up? Why solar and windmills to power our homes?
Here’s the thing, if you believe we are warming the planet with our life style quit living our life style. Don’t drive a car; don’t heat your house etc. Practice what you preach. Don’t point the finger at big oil big timber big mining big business. Point your finger at the mirror. Take some responsibility for yourself, quit whining.

Because the world is bigger than any one person and your wasteful habits might impact my grandchildren.

 

[Mayor Snorkum]

Well, as the perfectly natural warming of a perfectly natural interstadial period leads to the opening of the Northwest Passage, why shouldn't the affected government negotiate sea-lane definitions?

What's the problem here?

 

[Catawba]

Well, as the perfectly natural warming of a perfectly natural interstadial period leads to the opening of the Northwest Passage, why shouldn't the affected government negotiate sea-lane definitions?

What's the problem here?

Judging from your post and some of the others, the problem is the failure of those who never learned science in school. :sun

 

[Renae]

Judging from your post and some of the others, the problem is the failure of those who never learned science in school. :sun

Aren't you one of the AGW types? That's rich coming from you.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Aren't you one of the AGW types? That's rich coming from you.

Even the most basic understanding of science concludes that climate change is real.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Obama suggesting something to one guy constitutes him and all Democrats forcing us to buy little cars? I'm confused, how exactly does that work? '

Oh, you mean, he wants that one guy to tell three friends to buy a new car, and then those three friends tell three friends and on and on, like a pyramid scheme? Or is it more direct, like he was tasking the one guy to get the whole nation to buy a new car, is that what you mean?

Sorry I'm not following...

I’ll try to “unconfuse” you. Obamas flippant answer to a guy feeling the pain of high gas prices is indicative of his policies in general. As senator he said he liked high gas prices because they would force a person into more fuel efficient cars which brings me back to my original point. If it’s not average citizens contributing to global warming, why is gov so intent on coercing us into lifestyle changes? I changed the words a bit to make my question more clear to those looking to change the subject. I know the subject is uncomfortable to warmers, I know you don’t want to take any personal responsibility for your man made global warming philosophy. I know you want to go on living your modern lifestyle and say you’re not the problem, “they are” but if your theory’s true, you are the culprit, I would just like to see one of you admit it, then at least I could respect you as a person and respect your opinion on the subject. I have no respect for hypocrites though.

 

[Poptech]

Point me to an updated version of the film, then.

I believe this is the most current version,

The Great Global Warming Swindle (YouTube Video) (60min)

A point they made in the film was that most of the warming occurred before 1940, supposedly going against the idea that faster warming should occur with greater CO2 emissions in the second half of the 20th century. This point is blatantly false. The only revision I've seen to this point was removing the NASA logo.

That is a perfectly valid point. The revisions they did was in this one to remove Wunsch's interview, update some of the graphs and condense it by 24 minutes.

 

[Deuce]

I’ll try to “unconfuse” you. Obamas flippant answer to a guy feeling the pain of high gas prices is indicative of his policies in general. As senator he said he liked high gas prices because they would force a person into more fuel efficient cars which brings me back to my original point. If it’s not average citizens contributing to global warming, why is gov so intent on coercing us into lifestyle changes? I changed the words a bit to make my question more clear to those looking to change the subject. I know the subject is uncomfortable to warmers, I know you don’t want to take any personal responsibility for your man made global warming philosophy. I know you want to go on living your modern lifestyle and say you’re not the problem, “they are” but if your theory’s true, you are the culprit, I would just like to see one of you admit it, then at least I could respect you as a person and respect your opinion on the subject. I have no respect for hypocrites though.

Or, I don't know, maybe we believe this to be enough of an issue in the future that we want other people to change their habits also? Maybe we know that reducing our personal energy consumption wont make coal plants shut down and be replaced by sources other than fossil fuels?

I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that RadicalModerate thinks he is personally blameless. Oh wait, I do know: partisan hackery and the assumptions it brings about what you perceive as "the enemy." Our political climate has you so twisted around that you are willing to believe any bad thing that comes to mind or is told to you about those dastardly "warmers."

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, please feel free to address as to why the entire US military is so gullible as to believe something so obviously incorrect. I would absolutely LOVE to hear your reason!

Since when do you believe what the US military tells you? Am I supposed to get my scientific advice from the US military? Since when did the US military become a scientific authority on climate science?

Oh wait that is right, you believe all those who challenge AGW Alarm are right-wing social conservatives. How is this argument working out for you?

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, here's a list of 162 old climate change denialist arguments and 162 rebuttals, explaining the vast amount of science behind climate change research and findings.

Ah yes, "Skeptical Science" the website run by a cartoonist,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

"John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia"

What the alarmist fascination with cartoonists is I cannot say.

Feel free to address some or all of them.

I apologize I can only address 104 of them,

Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (28pgs) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)

Oh wait was that your big "win"? Sorry to shred it to pieces.

 

[Deuce]

I apologize I can only address 104 of them,

Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science (28pgs) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)

Oh wait was that your big "win"? Sorry to shred it to pieces.

Wow, I'm only at #3 and he's already repeating the standard talking points almost verbatim and not providing any supporting material whatsoever. Including the bog-standard article of faith: "No statistically significant warming for 15 years!" (not even accurate anymore after including 2010) This thing gets better, right?

edit:

Cook claims that these predictions were largely media-based. Well, the same is true about the current global warming alarm. It's mostly media-based and good scientists are simply not working on such conspiracy theories. It's still true that less good scientists are working on them, and they were also working in the 1970s. Sometimes it's the very same people. For example, Rasool and Schneider predicted a new ice age in 1971 - in an article in Science. The relative importance of the "scientific community" and the "media" is pretty much the same as it was in the global cooling alarm in the 1970s - the recent global warming hysteria just got far more severe than the global cooling hysteria 35 years ago.

Well, at least he admits that the "alarmism" is mostly media-based. I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Since when do you believe what the US military tells you? Am I supposed to get my scientific advice from the US military? Since when did the US military become a scientific authority on climate science?

Maybe instead of avoiding the question, you could give me a direct answer? If global warming is so obviously a lie cooked up by the scientifically uneducated, why does the most advanced military on Earth fall for such pseudo-scientific nonsense?

You don't have to write a thesis on it, just explain why the department that can launch missiles from a submarine and hit a moving target a thousand miles away, a department that has some of the most intelligent scientists creating some of the most advanced and ground breaking technology is human history, why they would be so easily bamboozled by such an obvious lie. Really. I'd like to know why you think that is.

Oh wait that is right, you believe all those who challenge AGW Alarm are right-wing social conservatives. How is this argument working out for you?

Everyone knows the best way to win a debate with somebody is to put words in your opponents mouth. I think Aristotle used that tactic quite effectively against Thrasymachus in The Republic...

 

[Renae]

Wow, I'm only at #3 and he's already repeating the standard talking points almost verbatim and not providing any supporting material whatsoever. Including the bog-standard article of faith: "No statistically significant warming for 15 years!" (not even accurate anymore after including 2010) This thing gets better, right?

This is what passes for a "Deuce" reply; "Nothing you posted counts, it's all rehashed lies!"

edit:


Well, at least he admits that the "alarmism" is mostly media-based. I wholeheartedly agree.

... and the Climate Scientist whose research grants are dependent on AGW aren't alarmist?

/boggle

 

[Poptech]

If global warming is so obviously a lie cooked up by the scientifically uneducated, why does the most advanced military on Earth fall for such pseudo-scientific nonsense?

Strawman, quote where I said this.

Everyone knows the best way to win a debate with somebody is to put words in your opponents mouth. I think Aristotle used that tactic quite effectively against Thrasymachus in The Republic...

Checkmate.

 

[RadicalModerate]

Ah yes, "Skeptical Science" the website run by a cartoonist

Ad homenim attack; the website is a collection of scientific studies from many, many different sources, all of which are listed on the webpage. Simply because the man is a cartoonist by trade does not mean that the data he uses is incorrect. If you addressed the sources he uses, you might have a point. But as it is, you made a logical fallacy and it doesn't hold up. Furthermore, just because he is a cartoonist by trade does not make his own statements on the issue untrue by default. You need to address the information, not the person giving the information.

I apologize I can only address 104 of them.

Well, no, you can only find someone else to address 104 points. You only used the link.

Unfortunately, I cannot open the page you linked to. Do you have an alternative link I can use?

 

[RadicalModerate]

Strawman, quote where I said this.

It's not a direct quote, it's a very brief synthesis of all your posts regarding the climate change issue.

Poptech, all your posts regarding climate change are trying to convince people that the science behind it is faulty, am I right? In short, you don think the CC is real threat, yes or no?

I'm asking you a simple question, that you still have not answered. If the science of climate change is false, if the conclusions drawn from the mass of data gathered is not true, why is the US military changing strategy to adopt to what the organizations and individuals are saying will happen if the issue is left unchecked?

 

[Deuce]

This is what passes for a "Deuce" reply; "Nothing you posted counts, it's all rehashed lies!"

Granted, I haven't read very far in the article yet (had to go to that annoying place where I do things for other people and they give me money), but what I'd read to that point was a series of statements with zero backing of any kind. Am I wrong? Does the guy start citing sources later on in the document?

... and the Climate Scientist whose research grants are dependent on AGW aren't alarmist?

/boggle

I think most of the "alarmism" comes from shoddy and sensationalized media coverage of a scientific topic... which is not at all unusual. Remember the Large Hadron Collider that supposedly "had a chance" of creating a black hole that would destroy the earth? People reported on that idiocy. I often describe the media as not having a liberal bias, but rather having a financial bias. Sensationalism sells. Period. Time and time again I've looked into supposed alarmism only to find the media's portrayal of a particular research study to be grossly overblown. It's where you get the idea that someone predicted 6 foot sea level increases by 2050. "Scientists predict 6 foot sea level increase by 2050!" becomes the headline, but if you look at the study you'd see that's not what was actually predicted. Rather, that's the absolute top end of the uncertainty margin for an emissions scenario the world is not following. It was a "what if we seriously increased our CO2 output very rapidly and did nothing to curtail it, what would we expect" scenario. The reader gets the idea that scientists actually expect something drastic is definitely going to happen, when reality is that the actual "best projection" based on the "most likely" scenario was like 9 inches.

Time and time again this comes from YOUR side. "Birds frying" is a recent quote on this very subforum. I can't remember who said it, but I challenged that individual to find me one scientific publication that actually used the phrase. No response, strangely.

Edit: I will partially retract the "no statistically significant warming" statement. It was an accurate statement at the time this paper was written. (April 2010) At the time, they would not have had 2010's data to add to the series. It's true that from 1995-2009 the warming trend was not significant at the 95% confidence level. It was 93%. Of course, just about any 15-year period will have difficulty determining a trend of temperature because it's just too short. The statement is accurate, but it is misleading. "No statistically significant warming" does not mean there was no warming and it absolutely does not mean that global warming has stopped. It simply means that no good conclusion on a temperature trend can be obtained from this limited dataset.

 

[Poptech]

Ad homenim attack; the website is a collection of scientific studies from many, many different sources, all of which are listed on the webpage. Simply because the man is a cartoonist by trade does not mean that the data he uses is incorrect. If you addressed the sources he uses, you might have a point. But as it is, you made a logical fallacy and it doesn't hold up. Furthermore, just because he is a cartoonist by trade does not make his own statements on the issue untrue by default. You need to address the information, not the person giving the information.

No it is an irrefutable fact that he is a cartoonist, not a climate scientist. All his "arguments" have been rebutted whenever they are brought up in a real scientific debate. The data and sources he uses also is disputed but the moderators censor comments so you falsely believe they are not. I've wasted too much time there before and it is pointless to continue so if I am censored. The 104 point rebuttal is sufficient to demonstrate that everything he posts is challenged and disputed.

Unfortunately, I cannot open the page you linked to. Do you have an alternative link I can use?

The link works fine, Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science.