Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9392
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 44 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm

Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.
User avatar
Jack Welles
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:15 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Muizenberg
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Jack Welles » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:22 pm

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm
Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.
Spoilsport [-X :lol:
Jack Welles (thriller_author pen name)
https://www.amazon.com/Jack-Welles/e/B073VJQTTX
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Textbook - "The Lore of Negotiation"
http://www.loreofnegotiation.com
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9392
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 44 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:34 pm

Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:22 pm
cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm
Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.
Spoilsport [-X :lol:
Don't panic. The googlenati will no doubt find a helpful "credible" you tube video for you ;)
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:48 pm

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm

no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.

+ 1 ....... We are all dependent on publications and "scientific" results.

I found the Forbes Magazine article quite clear :

“…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” This, he concludes: “is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

and - as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”


Interesting reading - here is the whole article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/ ... 4739bf53fc


JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:29 pm

Many forbes articles is beyond questionable using so called "experts" to debate on climate science issues when they are in fact not even remotely scientists to begin with !

One being an ignorant piece on "Is Anything Wrong With Natural, Non-Man-Made Climate Change"

This time by fake expert Mario Loyola, a lawyer with a background in European history. I guess Forbes considers those credentials give him the expertise to communicate the complexities of climate change. Presumably Forbes would hire a physicist as counsel for a lawsuit concerning corporate governance (Loyola's actual area of formal disciplinary expertise).

Loyola first invents a straw man in the form of a mythical ‘environmentalist’. This fantastical creature thinks climate change is bad only because it is caused by humans and would not object to catastrophic climate change if it was natural. Loyola goes on to claim that some people “flatly deny that temperatures and sea levels could be rising partly for natural reasons”. If such people exist, I have never met one. Most of us learn about natural climate change in elementary school when we first read that the climate of the dinosaurs was much different than our current one.

And most of us are able to recognize that multiple drivers combine to give an observed outcome. A car moves from the combined effects of the engine, the slope of the road, and the wind. Climate change is not either human-caused or natural; it is both. We also know that one driver can be much more important than others. The fact that your cat adds heat to your house doesn’t mean your furnace is irrelevant. According to Loyola logic, because natural volcanoes have caused catastrophic devastation in the past we shouldn’t try to prevent humans from releasing a nuclear bomb.

Loyola diligently searched the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers to find a quote to bolster his claims that current climate change could be caused by something other than humans. He chose this one for his misinterpretation: ”It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." If he had read and understood the report, he would know that his chosen quote about surface air temperatures doesn’t include heating of the oceans, which are absorbing 90% of the excess energy that is warming the planet.

Furthermore, in hunting for an IPCC statement to support his opinion Loyola skipped the statement just above it which is based on all the combined evidence, not just surface temperatures. “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” For sheer brazenness in selective quoting, I nominate Loyola for a cherry-picking trophy.

The notion that scientists don’t understand natural climate change or include it in their assessment of our current crisis is insulting to the thousands of researchers around the world who have spent decades studying the Earth system. These dedicated professionals have laboriously pieced together evidence from ice cores, ocean sediments, archeological and fossil records, and astronomy to build a coherent, consistent, and well-supported history of Earth’s climate.

Loyola is obviously unaware of Earth’s history, as he demonstrates when he laughably explains that because sea level rose by 300 feet at the end of the last ice age we shouldn’t worry about rising seas today. Undoubtably the few million humans on Earth 12,000 years ago were inconvenienced by sea level rise, while they were busy inventing agriculture. Following these absurd ideas, we learn that we shouldn’t worry that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has soared to levels never experienced in human history (or prehistory) because it was higher 254 million years ago, before dinosaurs even existed!

Amazingly, I found one statement in this sea of ignorance that I agree with: “Policies designed to guard against risks have to take uncertainty into account.” Given that we are uncertain whether human-caused climate change will be very bad, extremely bad, or catastrophic, I agree that it would be prudent to guard against those risks rather than throwing up smokescreens.
Fransw
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4498
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:22 pm
Closest Airfield: Pretoria
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Fransw » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:32 pm

Post²..
Last edited by Fransw on Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fransw
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4498
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:22 pm
Closest Airfield: Pretoria
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Fransw » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:32 pm

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm
Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.
How do you know that? Mmm?
User avatar
viki
< than 500' looking for landing in case
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:42 pm

cage wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:10 pm
Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
no one here is sufficiently qualified to over-simplify the concept to that extent for you.
The USGS is and the answer to the original question is Yes Sir, you summed it up spot on:

The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than is present in the atmosphere or oceans. Some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Volcanic emissions are a small but important part of the global carbon cycle. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Fransw
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4498
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:22 pm
Closest Airfield: Pretoria
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Fransw » Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:55 pm

Orthin Opter wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:43 pm
Jack Welles wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:00 pm
So save this climate change agnostic who is far too dof to follow all the arguments. Where are we in one sentence ... ?

For example, over long periods of time the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles and what man (and cows breaking wind) is doing is helping to exacerbate the current warming cycle.

Does that about sum it up?
Jack, you beat me to it. As the world population increases and more red meat is consumed (except India, perhaps) so more cattle are farmed and more methane is emitted by them, us and swamps. Perhaps this too is a global warmer? Earlier MadMac referred to the hole in the ozone layer fixing itself. Ozone is O3 and is produced when lightning strikes, not many thunderstorms in Arctic regions yet apparently the hole is smaller?
Introducing the "Fartpack". Extracting about 300l of methane gas from the poor animal's gut per day.

So each cow is actually a mini power station!..
article-0-1D29733200000578-945_634x421.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Skymaster » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:39 pm

You gotta just love alarmist logic and their naive judgment in believing ANYTHING that anyone says when it comes to a scientist with impeccable credentials questioning the unproven Co2 theory.
Here, for those who can think objectively, is a perfect example of a typical alarmist approach. Using a tired and well-worn strategy of unsubstantiated abusive attacks by alarmist scientists, with vested interests in their dodgy C02 theory to vilify and professionally abuse those who dare to QUESTION their unproven theories.
Non of these attacks have an iota of scientific proof - only the bigoted opinions of the the alarmist scientist whose very job and livelihood depends on the continuing acceptance of the "Co2" theory.
There is no proof put forward in a slanderous claim below that a scientist has been "bribed" or manipulated by any oil company.
What alarmists never admit is that they receive much bigger grants from "Big Oil" than scientific organisations that question the Co2 theory.
For instance, ExxonMobil recently gave Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website
Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said that they gave Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program.
Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants.
(Alarmists lie through not telling the whole truth!!)

Roy Spencer:Several Climate Scientists had this to say about his fallacies:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
(Sound like he was talking about Phil Jones faked results from the CRU!! Dessler another delusional, scaremongering alarmist. He forecast in an interview in Frontline in 2012 that:
"Climate change is coming. If you want to know what it looks like, just look at the Midwest. It’s drought; it’s heat. Warmer temperatures don’t mean barbecues and tank tops. It means drought; it means fire; it means suffering. People have to know that, and people need to be warned."
A fake, nonsense forecast that never came true - even the IPCC admit the recent fires in California were not the result of "global warming" and there is no drought.

“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience. (Duh??? Maybe according to Murphy's law!! LOL)

NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”
Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”
(Trenberth worked closely with the fraudulent Phil Jones of the CRU and has been criticised for blocking peer reviewed papers that do not agree with Co2 theories from IPCC reports. He of course denies the charges! The Guardian wrote an article outlining the charges.)

Philip Stott :

While presenting himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott has not published anything in the field he most frequently comments on viz. climate change. His views are also generally at odds with the scientific consensus.
Who says - another fake new claim)

Proffesor Pilmer has been known to change topics when asked about facts:

"Plimer went with another series of random facts, about corrections of satellite data, different datasets: anything but address his reversal of the findings of the paper he referenced. Yet again I pointed out that he was evading this question, and this time he veered off on to a completely different subject: the websites I read and who is funding them. He didn't explain what this had to do with his misrepresentation of the satellite paper.
I finished by pointing out that throughout the discussion Plimer had used evasion and distraction when faced with straight questions"
(This is supposed to be scientific criticism??? Looks like another dumb made-up fake news article by the alarmist brigade to discredit a scientist simply QUESTIONING.)


Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski
Zbigniew Jaworowski . He is a global warming skeptic and has connections to Exxon Mobil and Texaco through the Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures group -- a front group for corporate interests -- of which he is listed as an "international member." He also has ties to Exxon through the Heartland Institute.
(What "connections"??? Proof please. Read about the millions donated to alarmist forums by all the major oil companies - but they keep very mum about that)

Need i say more lol...( No need, you've already hanged yourself!)

In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
(Another - who said that? Mickey Mouse?? - Wonder how they helped put men in space then?)

William Kininmonth
Has no published peer-reviewed research on climate change according to a search of 22,000 academic journals.

(For the record Kininmonth has appropriate credentials -Kininmonth has a B.Sc. from the University of Western Australia, a M.Sc. from Colorado State University, and a M.Admin. from Monash University. Kininmonth headed Australia's National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998, He was Australia's delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology, was a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent intergovernmental negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991–1992). Once he started to QUESTION the dodgy Co2 theory, he was attacked, openly vlified and abused.)

The litany of failed alarmist predictions posted on this forum which have not been addressed.
The lies from the IPCC about everything from melting Himalayan Glaciers to Kilimanjaro.
And the endless, doom and gloom scenarios.
The sly questioning of any scientists credentials who attempts to QUESTION the Co2 theory and the subsequent abuse and vilification - all the while deliberately ignoring the shocking fact that the the UN's voice on global warming the IPCC was headed up by some old tired, politically appointed railway engineer with no climate credentials whatsoeve!!
Given the above, which represents but the tip of the iceberg, it is remarkable that there are still those who worship at the feet of the false god "global warming" WITHOUT QUESTION.
User avatar
zander
Lining Up
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: honeydew
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time

Re: Global warming

Unread post by zander » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:11 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:39 pm
You gotta just love alarmist logic and their naive judgment in believing ANYTHING that anyone says when it comes to a scientist with impeccable credentials questioning the unproven Co2 theory.
Except As pointed out and debunked already The scientists you quoted did not have impeccable credentials, most all you quoted did not even specialise in climate science ! and one is a laywer ! Yet you quoted their debunked articles. Co2 theory is not unproven, it Is proven.

Those working for oil who are credible, have their evidence twisted into untruths:

This is what goes on in the crooked empire:

ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.

Investigative reports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.

Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements. Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time. Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?

I have a unique perspective – because I was there.

From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis.
Climate research at Exxon

A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate – these are characteristics any scientist would be proud to own.

Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methane reduction.

Methane is a waste product released by coal mining and natural gas leaks; wastewater treatment plants; farting and belching cows, sheep, goats and anything else that chews its cud; decaying organic trash in garbage dumps; giant termite mounds in Africa; and even, in vanishingly small amounts, our own lactose-intolerant family members.

On a mass basis, methane absorbs about 35 times more of the Earth’s heat than carbon dioxide. Methane has a much shorter lifetime than carbon dioxide gas, and we produce a lot less of it, so there’s no escaping the fact that carbon has to go. But if our concern is how fast the Earth is warming, we can get a big bang for our buck by cutting methane emissions as soon as possible, while continuing to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels long-term.

For the gas and oil industry, reducing methane emissions means saving energy. So it’s no surprise that, during my research, I didn’t experience any heavy-handed guidance or interference with my results. No one asked to review my code or suggested ways to “adjust” my findings. The only requirement was that a journal article with an Exxon co-author pass an internal review before it could be submitted for peer review, a policy similar to that of many federal agencies.

Did I know what else they were up to at the time? I couldn’t even imagine it.

Fresh out of Canada, I was unaware that there were people who didn’t accept climate science – so unaware, in fact, that it was nearly half a year before I realized I’d married one – let alone that Exxon was funding a disinformation campaign at the very same time it was supporting my research on the most expedient ways to reduce the impact of humans on climate.

Yet Exxon’s choices have contributed directly to the situation we are in today, a situation that in many ways seems unreal: one where many elected representatives oppose climate action, while China leads the U.S. in wind energy, solar power, economic investment in clean energy and even the existence of a national cap and trade policy similar to the ill-fated Waxman-Markey bill of 2009.
Personal decisions

This latest study underscores why many are calling on Exxon to be held responsible for knowingly misleading the public on such a critical issue. For scientists and academics, though, it may fuel another, different, yet similarly moral debate.

Are we willing to accept financial support that is offered as a sop to the public conscience?

The concept of tendering literal payment for sin is nothing new. From the indulgences of the Middle Ages to the criticisms some have leveled at carbon offsets today, we humans have always sought to stave off the consequences of our actions and ease our conscience with good deeds, particularly of the financial kind. Today, many industry groups follow this familiar path: supporting science denial with the left hand, while giving to cutting-edge research and science with the right.

The Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University conducts fundamental research on efficient and clean energy technologies – with Exxon as a founding sponsor. Philanthropist and political donor David Koch gave an unprecedented US$35 million to the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in 2015, after which three dozen scientists called on the museum to cut ties with him for funding lobbying groups that “misrepresent” climate science. Shell underwrote the London Science Museum’s “Atmosphere” program and then used its leverage to muddy the waters on what scientists know about climate.

It may be easy to point a finger at others, but when it happens to us, the choice might not seem so clear. Which is most important – the benefit of the research and education, or the rejection of tainted funds?

The appropriate response to morally tainted offerings is an ancient question. In the book of Corinthians, the apostle Paul responds to a query on what to do with food that has been sacrificed to idols – eat or reject?

His response illustrates the complexity of this issue. Food is food, he says – and by the same token, we might say money is money today. Both food and money, though, can imply alliance or acceptance. And if it affects others, a more discerning response may be needed.

What are we as academics to do? In this open and transparent new publishing world of ours, declaration of financial supporters is both important and necessary. Some would argue that a funder, however loose and distant the ties, casts a shadow over the resulting research. Others would respond that the funds can be used for good. Which carries the greatest weight?

After two decades in the trenches of climate science, I’m no longer the ingenue I was. I’m all too aware, now, of those who dismiss climate science as a “liberal hoax.” Every day, they attack me on Facebook, vilify me on Twitter and even send the occasional hand-typed letter - which begs appreciation of the artistry, if not the contents. So now, if Exxon came calling, what would I do?

There’s no one right answer to this question. Speaking for myself, I might ask them to give those funds to politicians who endorse sensible climate policy – and cut their funding to those who don’t. Or I admire one colleague’s practical response: to use a Koch-funded honorarium to purchase a lifetime membership in the Sierra Club.

Despite the fact that there’s no easy answer, it’s a question that’s being posed to more and more of us every day, and we cannot straddle the fence any longer. As academics and scientists, we have some tough choices to make; and only by recognizing the broader implications of these choices are we able to make these decisions with our eyes wide open, rather than half shut.
Here, for those who can think objectively, is a perfect example of a typical alarmist approach. Using a tired and well-worn strategy of unsubstantiated abusive attacks by alarmist scientists[/, with vested interests in their dodgy C02 theory to vilify and professionally abuse those who dare to QUESTION their unproven theories.
Unproven, by who ? YOU ? your replies consistently become more ridiculous by the post, the science that was done is peer reviewed and emperical, yet YOU don't even have one credible source that can falsify it.
Non of these attacks have an iota of scientific proof - only the bigoted opinions of the the alarmist scientist whose very job and livelihood depends on the continuing acceptance of the "Co2" theory.
First of all, it is not attacks it is Science, and yes, climate science have been proven by Climate Scientists collaborating together to provide evidence, even the ones that are credible umongst the phony ones working for big oil who's results have been twisted in favor of oil's false prophecies as pointed out above, what have you to prove them wrong ? More political propaganda ? From those that is trying to defend their Billion trillions of dollars earth destroying industry ?
There is no proof put forward in a slanderous claim below that a scientist has been "bribed" or manipulated by any oil company.
What alarmists never admit is that they receive much bigger grants from "Big Oil" than scientific organisations that question the Co2 theory.
O there is and i have just posted it right here above in your reply ;)
There is endless proof provided, but none whatsoever by your denial "one liners", you just can't seem to understand how science works or blatantly denying it as typical deniers does.
For instance, ExxonMobil recently gave Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website
Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said that they gave Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program.
Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants.
(Alarmists lie through not telling the whole truth!!)
How absurd they give to Stanford some cheap change compared to their Fat filthy Trillion dollar empire, just so they can pretend they are "doing good"... Doesn't fool anyone but the deniers ;)

As to your replies on all your oil funded and false climate scientists

Again all you could do is give Your opinion nothing or no one backing up your claims, each and every debunked "scientist" on that list is still and always will be oil funded propagandists.
The litany of failed alarmist predictions posted on this forum which have not been addressed.
The lies from the IPCC about everything from melting Himalayan Glaciers to Kilimanjaro.
And the endless, doom and gloom scenarios.
The Himalayan Glacier/Kilimanjaro scenario have been proven Correct and was added here. You did not read it or choose to deny reality.
The sly questioning of any scientists credentials who attempts to QUESTION the Co2 theory and the subsequent abuse and vilification - all the while deliberately ignoring the shocking fact that the the UN's voice on global warming the IPCC was headed up by some old tired, politically appointed railway engineer with no climate credentials whatsoeve!!
Given the above, which represents but the tip of the iceberg, it is remarkable that there are still those who worship at the feet of the false god "global warming" WITHOUT QUESTION.
Remarkable, you keep blabbering on about the IPCC: Your assessment is totally wrong and it has been pointed out before:

It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that the IPCC ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences - is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme, a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim:

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."

The same argument also has a broader scope, demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC, there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument, by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.

Before considering this argument in full, it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly, such as geology or chemistry). From this, the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material. It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information, and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement.

How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, although, as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices, it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. See IPCC principles, Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. Many people are involved in this complex process:

“More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)".

Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process, February 2010

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.

The Broader Consensus

As with all such disputes, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced, and the conclusions those reports contain. If the accusations were true, such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies, particularly national science academies and the like.

On that basis, it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e.g. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US), unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. An expanded list can be found here, including this statement:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

SOURCE: Inter academy council
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.n ... Matter.pdf

Now please Show us YOUR source debunking the council
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by HJK 414 » Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:53 pm

zander wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:11 pm

.............Co2 theory is not unproven, it Is proven.

No - it is claimed as being "proven" - but there are many doubts and inconsistencies - (result interpretations) and those that ventilate and publish the doubts are immediately vilified. That means criticism is not allowed ..... or tolerated .....
You are a proving the point ......

JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:02 pm

HJK 414 wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:53 pm
zander wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:11 pm

.............Co2 theory is not unproven, it Is proven.

No - it isclaimed as being "proven" -but there are many doubts and inconsistencies - (result interpretations) and those that ventilate and publish the doubts are immediately vilified. That means criticism is not allowed ..... or tolerated .....
You are a proving the point ......

JK

No it is NOT "claimed" it is Proven, the science Speaks for itself, it is not a paid article that provides so called cherry picked "evidence" its real science providing real evidence not "interpretations"

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Last edited by sampie on Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:10 pm

Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. The extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
User avatar
HJK 414
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4959
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: EHTW
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 43 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by HJK 414 » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:44 pm

Ooooops......
Another scientist you can demonize.......

This one walked on the moon as well ....... another topic you can argue about ?
Ohhhhh and he is a geologist .....

Quote from article.....
I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research.”…

http://co2coalition.org/2018/10/18/apol ... te-report/


JK
The wisest mind has something yet to learn. ...

Return to “123.45”