The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

[Poptech]

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..

You are the one who was implying you cannot use a cold day to argue against global warming,

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

...while using a warm day to argue for it,

As for myself.. I tend to look at global warming from a view that I can actually see.. [...]

Kent WA. broke a record last summer.. We got up to 103 degerees.. For the first time ever..

The evidence speaks for itself.

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..

Of course I am using a single sentence because that is what I am addressing. Either you didn't really say what I posted above (which you did) or you are a hypocrite.

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..

The argument is very simple, glaciers began melting before hydrocarbon use and are unaffected by it's use. That does not mean they are not melting only the causation is incorrect on your part.

How can anyone give any credibility to Syun-Ichi Akasofu??

Because he has impeccable credentials,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, B.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Japan (1953); M.S. Geophysics, Tohoku University, Japan (1957); Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1961); Senior Research Assistant, Nagasaki University, Japan (1953-1955); Research Assistant in Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1958-1961); Assistant Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1961-1962); Associate Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1962-1964); Professor of Geophysics, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1964-1986); Editorial Advisory Board, Space Science Reviews Journal (1967-1977); Editorial Advisory Board, Planetary Space Science (1969-2007); Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research (1972-1974); Associate Editor, Journal of Geomagnetism & Geoelectricity (1972-2007); The Chapman Medal, Royal Astronomical Society, UK (1976); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (1977); Japan Academy Prize, The Japan Academy Award (1977); Member, Editorial Committee, Space Science Reviews (1977-2007); John Adam Fleming Medal, American Geophysical Union (1979); Distinguished Alumnus, University of Alaska (1980); Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists, Institute for Scientific Information Current Contents (1981); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (1983-2007); Head, Department of Physics, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1984-1986); Sydney Chapman Chair Professorship, University of Alaska (1985); Member, International Academy of Aeronautics, France (1986); Director, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1986-1999); Centennial Alumni, National Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges (1987); Fellow, Arctic Institute of North America (1987); Award, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (1993); Award, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan (1996); Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, University of Alaska (1997); Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (1998-2007); Alaskan of the Year-Denali Award (1999); Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2001); ISI Highly Cited Researcher (2002); Aurora Award, Fairbanks Convention and Visitors Bureau (2003); Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold and Silver Star, Emperor of Japan (2003); Dedicated, Syun-Ichi Akasofu Building, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (2007); Professor Emeritus of Physics and Director Emeritus, University of Alaska-Fairbanks (2007-Present)

Revealed: oil-funded research in Palin's campaign against protection for polar bear | World news | The Guardian

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

Epic Fail,

Two other contrarian scholars were cited. One was Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly director of the International Arctic Research Centre, in Alaska, who argues that climate change could be a hangover from the little ice age. He is a founding director of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Friday November 28 2008

In the article below, we describe the geophysicist Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu as a founding director of the Heartland Institute. In fact he has never held any formal position with the US thinktank.

Next time try to READ what you cite.

 

[Poptech]

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf

That is a conference paper and not peer-reviewed.

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

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

This paper has been rebutted,

Comments on Peter Laut’s paper: "Solar Activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations", 2003 (PDF)
(Danish National Space Center, 2003)
- Henrik Svensmark

nowhere in Peter Laut’s (PL) paper has he been able to explain, where physical data have been handled incorrectly, how the character of my papers are misleading, or where my work does not live up to scientific standards...

...The intension with this writing has been to demonstrate that perfectly sound scientific procedures have been used in our work, that there has been a consistent development in the idea that clouds are correlated with cosmic rays, that PL allegations towards me of publishing manipulated data and misleading the scientific community are erroneous

 

[mbig]

You can't "refute" reality, and you have NOT refuted Deuce.

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming : Starts With A Bang

"...Professor Mike Lockwood, an expert in long-term solar variations, has been keeping tabs on our Sun. As the BBC reported, he thinks he's figured out what's happening.

If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

So what's been going on -- in theory -- is that the Sun undergoes cycles that last hundreds of years, and it reached its maximum activity in this cycle just 24 years ago. Now, it's starting to come down from that, and so overall solar activity and -- here's the key -- overall solar output has been declining for the last 2 decades. What if we compared solar output with the recent rise in global average temperature? What can we learn?

That something besides solar activity is dominating Earth's temperature changes. The last few years (not shown on the graph) have seen both the temperature continuing to rise and the solar output start to fall.

There isn't even a correlation between solar activity/output and temperature anymore.

Or to let Mike Lockwood tell it in his own words:

We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity.
What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid.​

Or, in other words, the Earth is continuing to heat up even though the Sun is chilling out, relatively speaking. Neat stuff, and a little more ammo for those of you fed up with global warming deniers.

 

[Poptech]

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming : Starts With A Bang

That is a blog linked to a news story not a peer-reviewed paper.

 

[mbig]

That is a blog linked to a news story not a peer-reviewed paper.

Fallacious argument. Again.

The graph (and a hundred like it) is not in dispute and doesn't have to be "peer reviewed".
It shows at least 25 years of Temperature Rising while solar activity is ebbing.
You're so caught up in the climate wars you forgot how to think.

And if you just want to trade papers.. you'll last 850 vs 850,000 the other way.
(another of your outed fallacies)
That might work in a short setting like this, (and fill your Bullcrap Blog) but not on those of us who know your MO and point this out.

thx again for the laughs Poptart.

 

[Poptech]

Fallacious argument. Again.

The graph (and a hundred like it) is not in dispute and doesn't have to be "peer reviewed".

No it is a very relevant argument and the graph is very much in dispute,

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600 (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West

Let me know when you can produce peer-reviewed science to support your arguments.

And if you just want to trade papers.. you'll last 850 vs 850,000 the other way.

What 850,000 papers are you talking about? No such number exists MrSmall.

 

[DemonMyst]

Because he has impeccable credentials,

I can see debating with you is pointless.. You care nothing about facts but rather how you can twist someone's words to fit yout needs.. To you his credentials may be impeccable.. If he takes money from an oil company that makes him less than impatial.. Which in turn makes everything he says useless as he is simply selling his impeccable credentials to lend some credibility to the egenda of the oil companies.. So his words are meaningless to the scientific commutity..

I don't expect you to understand, you are still bent on making bogus claims about my other post.. Your tactics are lame.. Smear your apponent in attempt to change the playing field to your advantage... Start an arguement about something meaningless because you know you can't win the one about the real issue.. Some would call that a straw mans tactic.. I call it acting like a troll..

If you want to make the claim that I used the arguement that a hot day in Kent means global warmning is true.. Fine.. You would be making yourself look like an idiot.. Everyone else read my post and plainly see that you are simply full of it.. Call me a hypocrite all you want.. It doesn't change any of the facts..

You think that was the only example of your boy taking money from big oil?? No.. That was just the one I pasted.. And no formal position doesn't mean he didn't take money.. What you think they are going to make it obvious? The fact that Exxon was anywhere near his work discredits him.. Sorry.. That is just the facts.. It is well documented the oil companies have been buying scientists off to claim that Global Warming is fake.. Are you so stupid that you can't see the motive of the oill companies?? They stand to lose billions if the public decides to got off big oils nipple..

So any scientist that goes against the greater consensus and ignores the mountains of evidence is most likely on the take..

97% of Climate Scientists Agree: Humans are Causing Global Warming

97% of climate scientists agree that Global warming is real and man is responsible.. The remaining 3% are most likely bought out by big oil..

So the question for you is this?? What is more likely?? 97% of all the climate scientists are wrong and you and your scientist are correct?? Or You and your scietist are wrong and the 97% of all climate scientists are right??

In the end it doesn't matter.. If we follow your views.. We could make the planet unenhabitable for mankind.. If we listen to the 97% we will have a cleaner healther planet in the future.. So to use the logic of christians.. Are you sure you want to condemn the planet to death and why are you so against cleaning the planet?? Are you in bed with big oil?? If you wrong.. We all win to begin with.. So who cares??

You of course.. I know your type.. It isn't about what is best for everyone.. It is about being right and someone else being wrong..

 

[Renae]

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

How about you show us where CO2 has had any impact. Here's a hint, you cannot. Just opinion, theories and oh yeah, this huge problem with CO2...

Here's a bit for you to ponder, from a GREEN website.

Researchers Find that CO2 Forcing Alone Doesn’t Explain Magnitude of Ancient Global Warming Episode
15 July 2009
By analyzing data from deep-sea sediment cores to study an ancient global warming episode (the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, PETM), researchers found a less-than two-fold increase (70%) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels corresponding to the 5–9 °C (9-16 °F) warming of the PETM. Based on current knowledge and models of the Earth’s climate system, they had expected to find a three- to eight-fold increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to drive that amount of warming.

In a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, the team, led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa’s School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, suggests that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

We were pretty surprised that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide turned out to be so small. To explain the entire warming, you would need a whole lot more carbon.

—Richard Zeebe
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming event occurred about 55 million years ago, and was marked by an increase in global temperature of 5-9 °C over about 10,000 years. A key feature of the event was the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the atmosphere, possibly from the dissociation of oceanic methane hydrates, although the source remains an open issue.

Zeebe and his colleagues used data from the sediment cores and a carbon cycle model to calculate that the initial carbon pulse in the PETM was some 3,000 Pg C or less.

As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.

—Zeebe et al. (2009)
[From the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm (parts per million), the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 is more than 380 ppm—about a 36% increase. (Earlier post.)]

Once these other processes have been identified, the authors wrote, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models...Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models—the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming—caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.

—Gerald Dickens, co-author and professor of Earth science at Rice University
There are a few ideas what may have contributed to the additional warming. But I don’t think we fully understand these events of intense and rapid global warming. By continuing to put these huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we’re gambling with climate and the outcome is still uncertain.

—Richard Zeebe

Green Car Congress: Researchers Find that CO2 Forcing Alone Doesnt Explain Magnitude of Ancient Global Warming Episode

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

I’ll thread ban the next time I see a mangled username.

 

[Poptech]

I can see debating with you is pointless.. You care nothing about facts but rather how you can twist someone's words to fit yout needs.. To you his credentials may be impeccable.. If he takes money from an oil company that makes him less than impatial.. Which in turn makes everything he says useless as he is simply selling his impeccable credentials to lend some credibility to the egenda of the oil companies.. So his words are meaningless to the scientific commutity..

Did you NOT read my post? Did you NOT read the correction at the Guardian? There is NO evidence he "takes money from oil companies". Why are you trying to smear a respected and highly credentialed scientist?

If you want to make the claim that I used the arguement that a hot day in Kent means global warmning is true.. Fine.. You would be making yourself look like an idiot.. Everyone else read my post and plainly see that you are simply full of it.. Call me a hypocrite all you want.. It doesn't change any of the facts..

So why did you mention that there was a hot day in Kent?

You think that was the only example of your boy taking money from big oil?? No.. That was just the one I pasted.. And no formal position doesn't mean he didn't take money.. What you think they are going to make it obvious? The fact that Exxon was anywhere near his work discredits him.. Sorry.. That is just the facts.. It is well documented the oil companies have been buying scientists off to claim that Global Warming is fake.. Are you so stupid that you can't see the motive of the oill companies??

I don't believe in conspiracy theories like birthers do. Exxon is not anywhere near him, you are just delusional. It is not well documented that oil companies have been buying scientists. That is propaganda and lies. Are you so dishonest that you cannot accept the existence of scientists who do not support your hysteria?

So any scientist that goes against the greater consensus and ignores the mountains of evidence is most likely on the take.

Propaganda and lies.

97% of climate scientists agree that Global warming is real and man is responsible..

Propaganda - The "97%" is only 75 out of 77 subjectively cherry picked "specialists" or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

Looks like you continue to have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Responding to warmers with facts and figures is a waste of time and effort. It is a religion to them and they are true believers. They are emotionally invested in this and anyone who says anything against their religion is labeled a heretic, a tool of Satan if you will. I guess the reason us skeptics keep trying is these warmers are like the Wahhabi faction of Islam. They want to enforce their religion on the rest of us. Funny part is, just like Wahhabi terrorist visit strip clubs and casinos before they do a suicide bombing these warmers get in their car drive to the airport and board a 747 to jet off on a luxury vacation. They turn up the heat in their homes in winter, the AC in summer. They take long hot showers and drive the kids to soccer practice in their minivan. Oh well, what are ya gonna do.

 

[makkam]

Responding to warmers with facts and figures is a waste of time and effort. It is a religion to them and they are true believers. They are emotionally invested in this and anyone who says anything against their religion is labeled a heretic, a tool of Satan if you will. I guess the reason us skeptics keep trying is these warmers are like the Wahhabi faction of Islam. They want to enforce their religion on the rest of us. Funny part is, just like Wahhabi terrorist visit strip clubs and casinos before they do a suicide bombing these warmers get in their car drive to the airport and board a 747 to jet off on a luxury vacation. They turn up the heat in their homes in winter, the AC in summer. They take long hot showers and drive the kids to soccer practice in their minivan. Oh well, what are ya gonna do.

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.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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?

Do you not see the similarity between exclaiming we produced more CO2 so the world must be warming solely because of us?

 

[Deuce]

Do you not see the similarity between exclaiming we produced more CO2 so the world must be warming solely because of us?

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

 

[Deuce]

How about you show us where CO2 has had any impact. Here's a hint, you cannot. Just opinion, theories and oh yeah, this huge problem with CO2...

You're the one who appealed to credentials. "I'm a trained forecaster so you should just listen to me because I know what I'm talking about." And nothing else. Not even an argument, really. "Climate changes." Yes. We know.

Here's a bit for you to ponder, from a GREEN website.


Green Car Congress: Researchers Find that CO2 Forcing Alone Doesnt Explain Magnitude of Ancient Global Warming Episode

Same thing again. Links with no argument made. Tell me what you think this means so that I actually have something to talk about. Nobody ever said CO2 was the only forcing in any climate change so I don't see how "turns out CO2 isn't the only forcing" would surprise anyone. This event was 55 million years ago, not having good data about every feedback or forcing is not terribly shocking.

By the way, it was a 5-9C increase over 10,000 years, and this is considered rapid warming from a geological perspective. Even just .6-.7C/century seen in the 20th century is significantly faster than that if the trend did continue.

 

[Poptech]

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.

An Inconvenient Truth is a science-fiction politically biased propaganda film,

Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News)

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is" - Al Gore, 2006

"some of the errors by Mr Gore in AIT do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." - British High Court Justice Michael Burton, 2007 Ruling

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)

Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)

Errors:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK, October 11, 2007)

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)

Guides:
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (154pgs) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)


Al Gore, B.A. in Government, Divinity and Law School Dropout (no science degree)
Al Gore Got a D in Natural Sciences at Harvard (NewsBusters)
The Education of Al Gore (The Washington Times)

Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.

Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal, June 29, 2000)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Gore's home energy use: more than 20 times the national average (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
Stunning Pictures of Al Gore's New $9 Million Mansion Media Totally Ignored (NewsBusters)

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, Al Gore is not a scientist and people really should stop listening to him as a source of info on this. An Inconvenient Truth is not a scientific publication.

edit: Although admittedly I've never watched An Inconvenient Truth so cannot address much specifically. The few clips I've seen do have alarmist stuff like the 20 foot sea level rise which Gore fails to mention would take several centuries at a minimum.

Similarly, the so-called documentary to "debunk" global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle, is full of lies, spin, and cherry-picking. (including straight-up, provable fabrication of data.)

 

[makkam]

makes me wonder what facts do you actually trust. it's not unthinkable that a lot of people can get the "incentive" to say what other people want them to say. in the end, where all repeating information we just got from somebody else.

 

[Poptech]

Similarly, the so-called documentary to "debunk" global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle, is full of lies, spin, and cherry-picking. (including straight-up, provable fabrication of data.)

The scientific errors were corrected in later versions, something Gore has never done.

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)

 

[Deuce]

The scientific errors were corrected in later versions, something Gore has never done.

The Science in The Great Global Warming Swindle (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences)

You mean the scientific error of altering a temperature graph completely and putting a NASA logo on it? That error?

How about placing a scientist's statements in a context that make it seem like he's saying exactly the opposite of what he intends to say?

How about chopping off a temperature vs. solar activity chart at exactly the point where they start to diverge radically because you're trying to show that solar activity is the cause of the temperature rise?

Those were all corrected? Where? Show me.

This article you posted contains many of the usual blanket statements like "no one can show how..." despite these things being... well, shown. Repeatedly. It claims the hockey stick has been "thoroughly discredited" while offering nothing to support this statement. (it hasn't. there's a whole host of proxy temperatures that all agree. it's a hockey team)

It also brings up the standard Medieval Warm Period talking point. There's this blind-faith idea among skeptics that the whole world was much warmer than it is today. Except for some reason they always point to Greenland.

(it's because the MWP, globally speaking, was not nearly as warm as skeptics claim. Greenland was warm, but on a global average it is warmer today)

 

[Poptech]

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)

 

[Deuce]

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)

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

 

[Catawba]

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

I was unaware of this before your link to this article. Thank you!

 

[RadicalModerate]

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.

Would you care to comment on why the US Navy is adjusting for the higher ocean levels predicted by climate scientists?

Why the top brass is adjusting strategy for the socio-political effects of changing weather patterns, scarcer water resources and crop viability?

Why the Center for Naval Analysis considers the effects of climate change to be one of the biggest emerging threats to National Security?

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!

And, please, address the reports directly first, then you can create all the red herrings you want afterwords.

 

[RadicalModerate]

I was unaware of this before your link to this article. Thank you!

You are very welcome.