Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?

Controlled experiment: isolate a gas, see what happens when you subject it to thermal infrared radiation.

[Hornet33]

Can the "climate change experts" answer me something?

Several thousand years ago, the area where New York City now stands was under 900ft of ice. Geologic evidence PROVES this. Marine fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains which PROVES that once upon a time that area was under water. There are the ruins of entire cities sitting on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. They've been surveyed and photographed by divers. Did the people build them underwater or did something change?

Back then there were not enough people around to cause the climate and planet to change, yet it did all on it's own. Glaciers melted, sea levels changed, it got hotter, then colder, ect. So WHY all of a sudden do people think WE are now causing something to happen, that has historically happened all on it's own, and now we as a species NEED to pay someone to "fix" something that we have absolutely NO control over.

No one can "prove" that we as a species are effecting the climate. All the "climate change" community has is a theory with no evidence to back it up, and now we find that what they claim to be evidence has been cooked to fit the theory, we're supposed to just blindly follow along?

I don't buy it. The HARD evidence proves that the climate and Earth has and will continue to change no matter if there are people on this rock or not. The theory that humans are all of a sudden somehow causing the climate to change has no hard data to back it up, yet the weak minded buy into it, and the people promoting it are getting rich or gaining personal power from it.

[RTHolmes]

 

[CAP1]

Can the "climate change experts" answer me something?

Several thousand years ago, the area where New York City now stands was under 900ft of ice. Geologic evidence PROVES this. Marine fossils have been found in the Rocky Mountains which PROVES that once upon a time that area was under water. There are the ruins of entire cities sitting on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. They've been surveyed and photographed by divers. Did the people build them underwater or did something change?

Back then there were not enough people around to cause the climate and planet to change, yet it did all on it's own. Glaciers melted, sea levels changed, it got hotter, then colder, ect. So WHY all of a sudden do people think WE are now causing something to happen, that has historically happened all on it's own, and now we as a species NEED to pay someone to "fix" something that we have absolutely NO control over.

No one can "prove" that we as a species are effecting the climate. All the "climate change" community has is a theory with no evidence to back it up, and now we find that what they claim to be evidence has been cooked to fit the theory, we're supposed to just blindly follow along?

I don't buy it. The HARD evidence proves that the climate and Earth has and will continue to change no matter if there are people on this rock or not. The theory that humans are all of a sudden somehow causing the climate to change has no hard data to back it up, yet the weak minded buy into it, and the people promoting it are getting rich or gaining personal power from it.

do you have computer models to prove this? no? didn't think so. you must be wrong. we must pay pay pay. 

[Hornet33]

do you have computer models to prove this? no? didn't think so. you must be wrong. we must pay pay pay. 

You don't need a computer model when you can hold the physical evidence in your hand and look at it

[CAP1]

You don't need a computer model when you can hold the physical evidence in your hand and look at it

I KNOW........was being sarcastic. 

[Hornet33]

I KNOW........was being sarcastic. 

I know......you and I tend to think alike on this "issue" just making sure the zealots don't try to jump on the computer model thing as being evidence when we both know it isn't.

[CAP1]

I know......you and I tend to think alike on this "issue" just making sure the zealots don't try to jump on the computer model thing as being evidence when we both know it isn't.

WOuldn't it have been hilarious, though, if they had(and you know they would've)?

[Hornet33]

Someone probably will anyway. You can't convince a true "climate change" believer that their data is wrong, after all the "model" says they're right, physical evidence be damned!!

[Angus]

ok angus how does your human intervention theory explain the massive rise in CO2 130,000yrs ago, and 240,000yrs ago, and 330,000 years ago, and ... etc?

(Image removed from quote.)

note: this same cycle goes back in the same way for millions of years

No problem at all. When our emission is in harmony with an increase. Oh, there is no debate that there have been violent changes of the earth's atmosphere many times over. However, what is funny now is that it's happening pretty fast,  -so rather than having 100.000 years or so in the swing, we'd be looking at perhaps some 200. Unless we stop of course.

Will be back with some B-17 a'la glacier explanation soon. Actually I think it's the wrong plane, - I have in mind a b-17 that's almost in visible range from me and I have seen the engine block......

[RTHolmes]

However, what is funny now is that it's happening pretty fast,  -so rather than having 100.000 years or so in the swing, we'd be looking at perhaps some 200. Unless we stop of course.

  look at the data again

[Sabre]

I just have to ask a simple question for all those who believe in MMGW.  It requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.  We have evidence within these emails and files (some containing some of the code used to produce the temperature data sets) that points to a wide spread and systematic effort to manipulate the data to support the MMGW theory, and to squash or otherwise marginalize legitimate scientific dissent to MMGW.  Explanation has been offered by the accused, but as yet without evidence to back up their claims of innosense.  They had the capability, the opportunity, and the motive (money, infuence, and prestige to name just a few) to do what they are accused of doing.

Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes", then you must also agree that the allegations themselves must first be investigated by impartial and independent parties before committing to national or international action at Copenhagen.  If you answered "no", then you are acting on faith, and not on logic or science.  What say you?

[Anaxogoras]

Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?

You seem to be assuming that this one climate research center in the UK is the ultimate authority on the subject, when in fact there are scientists studying the topic all over the world.  If it turned out that all of the scientists who support AGW were smoothing data points and cherry-picking evidence, then, yes, I would want our political leaders to rethink our course of action.

[CAP1]

You seem to be assuming that this one climate research center in the UK is the ultimate authority on the subject, when in fact there are scientists studying the topic all over the world.  If it turned out that all of the scientists who support AGW were smoothing data points and cherry-picking evidence, then, yes, I would want our political leaders to rethink our course of action.

herd mentality.

the "scientists" in the uk say it's so. they show "proof" that it is so. so the rest of the countries' "scientists" follow their lead.

 i agree, that our course of action should be re-thought.

[Angus]

I just have to ask a simple question for all those who believe in MMGW.  It requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.  We have evidence within these emails and files (some containing some of the code used to produce the temperature data sets) that points to a wide spread and systematic effort to manipulate the data to support the MMGW theory, and to squash or otherwise marginalize legitimate scientific dissent to MMGW.  Explanation has been offered by the accused, but as yet without evidence to back up their claims of innosense.  They had the capability, the opportunity, and the motive (money, infuence, and prestige to name just a few) to do what they are accused of doing.

Here's the question: If it is true that these scientists committed scientific fraud to perpetuate the MMGW hypothesis, is it not reasonable to ask that our national leaders to refrain from committing us to sovereingity destroying, and potentially economically devastating courses of action in Copenhagen until the both the true temperature trend and mankind's effect on it can be either confirmed or refuted by a fresh and transparent analysis? Indeed, it is not our solemn duty to insist that they do not? Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes", then you must also agree that the allegations themselves must first be investigated by impartial and independent parties before committing to national or international action at Copenhagen.  If you answered "no", then you are acting on faith, and not on logic or science.  What say you?

Good point.
Bear in mind that if you put the debaters into "camps", you have the scientists both with the corporates (Where the big money is) as well as (mostly perhaps) in the fund money pool (where the smaller money is).  However most of the observers of GW have no moneytary interest in it being so-or-so.
Odd, I have not seen (maybe bad eyes?) anyone here claiming GW is a hoax. Just the MMGW part. And that's exactly the possibility being researched in the first place. And belive me, there is very big money about who has an absolute benefit of MMGW being debunked. Be it wrong or right. The hangover comes after the party anyway....