Global Warming Propaganda

[Rheghead]

Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that I'm going to waste my time again, just to be greeted with some silly response? I'd have more success teaching sharks to roller skate.

Well we keep coming back to that inconvenient evidence thing. Not everyone is happy to accept dogma, there's a thing called natural curiosity, the conclusion may not be to our liking but we should accept it non-the-less otherwise we get accused of being deniers.

[rich]

The Copenagan conference will be underway early next month.
What would constitute a successful outcome?
Or, come to that, a lousy outcome?

[Each]

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.

Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...

[Rheghead]

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.

Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...

It would be easy to think that, in fact that was why that BS was made to make you think that way.

[Stavro]

It would be easy to think that, ...

It would be easy to think that, because it is true.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

[Rheghead]

It would be easy to think that, because it is true.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

No it was total rubbish.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

[rich]

This "debate" is classic thud and blunder ORG.
Each side is hunkered down in their particular trench shouting nasty things at each other.
(The powers that be should take the lot of you off the subject until you have calmed down.)
You cant have science without evidence.
Could somebody out there start providing statistics.? Once we have the stats we can link them up as we see fit according to our beliefs.
And then, Gleeber, you could choose a safe time to get back on your roof (which I suspect you of converting into a wnd machine) without being reduced to a cinder or swept away by a hurricane.

[Through]

The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?

The "hole" in the ozone layer was discovered in 1974. There is evidence that the "hole" in the ozone layer is healing itself.

New Church, M J et al, Evidence for slowdown in stratospheric ozone loss: first stage of ozone recovery, J Geophys Res, 108(D16) 4507, doi:10.1029/2003JD003471. [AGU]

We have now identified a number of cyclic behaviours exhibited by the ozone layer. What we don't know, is how was the ozone layer behaving prior to first noticing the "hole" in 1974. For all we know, the "hole" is normal.

I keep putting "hole" inside quotation marks, because it is not a hole. It is a thinning of the ozone layer.

Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

[Through]

Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.

Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors. It is now a worthless award.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2007/2288.html

[Through]

Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.

Well yes they did Tonkatojo.

Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.

What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years. It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period. There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages. The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.

All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period. The peak for this period is in the past.

[joxville]

I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.

I daresay the majority of people, myself included, find the thought of trawling through scientific papers tedious in the extreme, plus the 'evidence' will be so full of waffle that the man in the street won't be able to understand it, which is the result Government wants anyway. Governments rely on advice from the scientific community, which in turn needs funding, so where will they get the money from?

Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked.

[Through]

Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.

I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.

Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.

My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.

I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus. On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.

Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups. One group go off to try and find better arguments. The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models. More about models later.

Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171. Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."

If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on. This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.

Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.

For example,

Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.

Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.

Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.

If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.

Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.

Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.

[Stavro]

Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors. It is now a worthless award.

Albert Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should be re-named, "A Convenient Lie."

[Aaldtimer]

Originally Posted by Through
Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

Jox..."I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked."

Of course Jox, everything about climate is inextricably linked!

[Rheghead]

Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.

I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.

Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.

My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.

I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus. On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.

Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups. One group go off to try and find better arguments. The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models. More about models later.

Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171. Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."

If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on. This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.

Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.

For example,

Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.

Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.

Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.

If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.

Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.

Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.

What will be the effect on global temperatures by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels?

Plus I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't have the effect of raising temperatures either.

[gleeber]

Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.

My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.

That was a good post Through. Very authoritive and comes with enough scientific reference for your opponents to challenge you.
I have little scientific knowledge concerning this issue but I trust science.
Why, if your opinions are correct, do others come up with a different scenario for global warming?
Surely it's not that difficult for science in a modern world to say that mans pollution is having an effect on the climate of the planet? Well, the truth is they do say it's a problem but then you and others on this thread say different.
Whats really going on?
Is it all down to prestige and how many Nobel prizes can be won? Are the opponets of human induced global warming so cynical in their reasoning that they would rather condemn the results of fellow scientists for deeper personal reasons not too far removed from prestige and Nobel prize envy?
There's a similar impasse in the evolution/creation debate where a small minority of scientists, because they believe in the Bibles interpretation of creation, are blinded to the argument for evolution and throw a number of small spanners into the works to muddy the weaters. They are not necessarily dishonourable and I'm sure some of them believe it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water does nothing to help anyones case.
Is that what's happening here?
Is the amount of pollution being pumped into the earths atmosphere having absolutely no effect on the ecology of the planet?

[Rheghead]

Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.

[Rheghead]

Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.

How does this disprove anything?

[tonkatojo]

Well yes they did Tonkatojo.

Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.

What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years. It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period. There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages. The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.

All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period. The peak for this period is in the past.

That's the one, does it give any indications what were the causes of the ebb and flow of the temperatures ??. or is the data going to blow the "myths" of current global warming.

[Stavro]

I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas.

Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.