Climate Alarmists Own Words Debunk Their Science

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

The numbers are only compelling when you are looking at fraudulent data sets. To please their funding masters, the scientists unfortunately have created fraudulent data sets by removing data stations that do not support their pre-determined conclusions and have 'fixed' data in many cases to support their arguments. To best example is outlined in the leaked East Anglia emails involving the activities climate change promoter Penn State Professor Michael Mann.

This is just plain crazy. To suggest that literally thousands of different temperature recordings on land in the ocean, in the ice, and from satellites have been "fixed" making them ALL show the same trend is just plain fucking nuts.

And you nitwits keep repeating the same tired, totally debunked E-mail thing. Multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrong doing. But of course in your paranoid deluded mind we can't trust anyone. Except Anthony Watts that is. LOL.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

The first key issue is that CO2 lags warming by 800 years. The following url outlines this in charts and includes links to many peer reviewed papers by leading scientists on the subject.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

The CO2 level in the atmosphere today is reflective of the peak of the warming period that ended in 1300AD.

But CO2 can also lead warming. It's doing it now. And it's done it in the past. It's a greenhouse gas so if it goes up temps will follow. Why is this common sense simple concept so difficult for some?

There is a recent study that shows that actually there was no lag at all but that CO2 and temps went up and down in lock step. Like it's doing now. The 800 year lag was a problem of aligning the ice data.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

This is just plain crazy. To suggest that literally thousands of different temperature recordings on land in the ocean, in the ice, and from satellites have been "fixed" making them ALL show the same trend is just plain fucking nuts.

And you nitwits keep repeating the same tired, totally debunked E-mail thing. Multiple investigations have cleared him of any wrong doing. But of course in your paranoid deluded mind we can't trust anyone. Except Anthony Watts that is. LOL.

You know some of the data has been fudged to use a nice term. Your belief in AGW is not supported by science and you are a fool to believe it yourself.

 

[sle]

Quote from pspr:
But a number are linked peer reviewed papers can be found here. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Funny. So I clicked on the first paper in "featured" section that caught my eye, simply because they use PCA which I happen to use too as an analysis tool. The paper actually thoroughly presents the data and the improved methodology, as a good science paper should. However, their conclusions are consistent with prior data (as in "it is getting warmer around here") a;beit with different localisations and means. Did they think nobody is actually going to read the papers they are reviewing?

PS. If I just wanted a list of papers on climate change, there is a good review in Nature Geophysics from last year

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

Your posts are just getting more humorous by the day. You have nothing to support your uninformed beliefs. Here's a little chart that puts your lie in perspective and shows how stupid your argument is.

<img src=http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif>

And your chart is wrong. CO2 contributes about 20%. I suggest you start looking at NOAA. Or are you so crazy as to think they are also frauds?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html


"A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

You know some of the data has been fudged to use a nice term. Your belief in AGW is not supported by science and you are a fool to believe it yourself.

I'm beginning to think you are simply insane.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from sle:

Funny. So I clicked on the first paper in "featured" section that caught my eye, simply because they use PCA which I happen to use too as an analysis tool. The paper actually thoroughly presents the data and the improved methodology, as a good science paper should. However, their conclusions are consistent with prior data (as in "it is getting warmer around here") a;beit with different localisations and means. Did they think nobody is actually going to read the papers they are reviewing?

PS. If I just wanted a list of papers on climate change, there is a good review in Nature Geophysics from last year

Good luck arguing with these crazies sle. I've done the same thing as you and looked at their "science papers" and videos and like you I found them wanting to say the least. The one I looked at tried to deny that CO2 was even a greenhouse gas. The video they trumpet is an outright proven fraud.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

And your chart is wrong. CO2 contributes about 20%. I suggest you start looking at NOAA. Or are you so crazy as to think they are also frauds?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html


"A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder."

http://www.newscientist.com/article...2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html

That's just wrong. And, clouds are a net negative on global warming. Any fool knows that. Bad data gives you bad results.

But, who gives a shit. CO2 has been climbing steadily since warming stopped 17 years ago. Your analysis of what has caused the warming last century is bogus.

Go back and read some of the scientists saying how they lied about the science in my OP. And quit being so stupid.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

I'm beginning to think you are simply insane.

I've known that about you for months now.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from sle:

If you go and look at historical temperature sets from the universities outside of the sphere of the US influence (e.g. Moscow State University), you will find a similar trend. The upward trend in the global temperature are very hard to deny (and the intelligent critics do not go there) and the impact is fairly real - forget about the hurricanes, simply take a look at Maldives and Venice. The real question is if there is a compelling link between human activity and the particular phenomenon and I think the jury is still out.

I can agree with your statement above.

I will note that the warming and cooling of the earth goes in naturally cycles - just as it has for thousands of years before man even showed up on the earth.

The current trend is warming - but the trend is slight - under a degree over a large number of decades which is well within the standard deviation of normal temperature change. However the trend is about to reverse - 40 years from now everyone will be wondering why all these people were making a ruckus over global warming.

From a human perspective, we should focus on scientific efforts on how to adapt to natural changes in the climate. The reality is that global cooling is much more a threat than global warming to mankind. Some of the most productive periods of human existence have been warmer centuries.