The Great Global Warming Swindle

[gwb-trading]

Quote from trefoil:

I know you're not serious. I mean, sheesh.

What a load. All that shows is that the base used for calculating the anomaly may (big may 'cause I have no reason to trust that site) have changed. That's all.
I did all those calculations above myself, and all I did was think logically about what the data should show, and then calc it. Between the thought and the calculation it took me 15 minutes, including time to find the data. IF the data were faked, I should have found some inconsistency between what logic tells you the data should show and what it actually showed.
There was no inconsistency.

The article in the link is to show clear evidence that you can not trust information presented by the IPCC. The author points out clear evidence of information fraud.

Do I believe the article presents a strong argument to support that global warming does or does not exist? No. But that was not the intented purpose - the information was presented to show yet another example of data fraud.

Now go run your statistics over a full data set of Antartic land and sea ice readings, and explain to us if the ice is increasing or decreasing over the past 20 years. Be sure to include ALL the data stations, not just 2% that support a global warming theory.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from gwb-trading:

I have never seen anyone argue in these threads that the banning of CFCs was not appropriate. There is strong enough statistical and scientific data that CFC caused both local environemental issues and could harm the ozone. The argument that CFCs were the cause of the hole in the ozone above the poles is still open to question because it has since become apparent that the earth has had ozone holes for periods of time before CFCs were invented.

Trying to tie CFCs (a man-made substance) to CO2 (a natural substance) in your discussion is absurd. Man-made CO2 accounts for a tiny fraction of the CO2 generated each year on earth with most of it coming from rotting vegetation and other natural sources.

If global-warming from CO2 is really an issue then man really better find a way of stopping the generation of CO2 from rotting plants, volcanoes, and everything else that puts it out naturally. Even eliminating CO2 output from a minor fraction of rotting plants would have a huge impact of CO2 overall generation. Eliminating man-made CO2 wouldn't even put a minor dent in the overall CO2 levels.

What do you mean by tie? The two are greenhouse gasses. That's the tie.
As one was banned a while back, you should have seen, since the time of the banning,

1 - An increase in the correlation between rising temps and CO2, and
2 - A decrease in the rate at which temps are increasing.

Both are present in the data. Demonstrably. That's pretty strong evidence the data isn't faked, since most people don't know CFCs were also greenhouse gasses. In other words, there would be no political motive to ginning up the data to show or not show how CFCs affected climate. The fact you can show it with the data as presently published is strong evidence the data is good.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from trefoil:

What do you mean by tie? The two are greenhouse gasses. That's the tie.

Water and Antifreeze are both liquids. That's a tie.

Why don't you drink both of them and let us know how it works out?

One is a man-made poison and the other a naturally occuring harmless substance just like CO2.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Water and Antifreeze are both liquids. That's a tie.

Why don't you drink both of them and let us know how it works out?

One is a man-made poison and the other a naturally occuring harmless substance just like CO2.

Like I said, you have no interest in the stats, because you have no interest in actual facts. I notice you haven't even tried to come up with an explanation of how faked data can show something no one is looking for but should logically be there if it's correct.
Bye now.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from trefoil:

I also dig the bs about std dev's and all that. As if you had a real interest in the stats.
Here's a real real simple test you can run at home, since ALL of the data is free and publicly available. CFC's were banned in 1990. Now, if CFC's are greenhouse gasses on their own, and CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, then what you should find is that before 1990 the correlation between CO2's rise and temps rising is weaker than after 1990, because a piece of the pre-1990 rise would have been attributable to CFC's.

Here's the data, via the CORREL function in Excel. Even the numbnuts (ex futurecurrents) arguing here can figure out how to use it, I'm sure:

1959 to 1990: 75% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.
1991 to 2010: 81.5% correlation between CO2 and rising temps.

So there you have it. Now that CFC's are banned, the link between CO2 and rising temps has increased, proving both that CFCs were greenhouse gasses on their own and that CO2 is too.
Another test: the rate of increase in temps should have decreased since CFCs were banned as well. This wouldn't prove by itself that CO2 is also causing warming, but the evidence that banning CFCs caused the temperature rise to slow down should give pause to anyone believing the claptrap put out by the gulls who actually believe the Koch brothers.

Here's the data:

Rate of temp increase, 1959 to 1990: 12.7% compounded over a century.
Rate of temp increase, 1991 to 2010: 5.06% compounded over a century.

Ironically, it seems that the success we've had in slowing down that rate from banning CFC's (which these people would have opposed with the same arguments, and did at the time) has given the reactionaries an opening. More's the pity.

Well I'm not sure what I did to earn your "numbnut" label. I thought we were on the the page and that I've been arguing effectively although perhaps fanatically about AGW. Maybe you misunderstood one of my posts to be an attack on you? If so, that's not the case.

That being said and since we're trying to be honest here. Your suppositions about the affect of CFC reduction on GW are suspect for the following reason. CFC's were responsible for about 10% of the radiative forcing (Greenhouse effect) in 1992. They are now responsible for estimated 8.7%. A drop of 1.5 %. And that is of the external ie. manmade forcing agents. Also the drop is merely relative, as CO2 will be a larger component. The actual levels of CFC's in the atmosphere will not decrease appreciably as they persist even though emissions have stopped. Also since water vapor is responsible for about half of shorter term greenhouse gas forcing, the relative forcing potential of CFC's has actually gone down less than 1% and the actual forcing has essentially remained the same. Considering all the other strong short term factors in world temps like the el nino cycles and the reduction in solar input, trying to mathematically associate the banning of CFC's with temps, while perhaps an impressive display of math acumen, is ultimately an exercise in mathematic masturbation. It also an example of the old axiom "crap in = crap out" and that data without context is useless.. Or something like that.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

You AGW worrywarts ignore one question.

Let's say I concede your entire argument about warming, greenhouse gases, etc. What effect will any actions we take have on it?

The answer is nothing to next to nothing. As a practical matter, people are not going to accept going back to the levels of CO2 generation that your models say is needed. Even if we as a country punished ourselves and destroyed our economy to do so, the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, et al are not going to.

For the zealots, simply doing the "right" thing is far more important than any actual outcome or the cost. For the liberals, it's another chance to grab control of more of the economy. For the less developed countries, it's a chance to extort money from us.

The whole thing is a giant scam to transfer money from rich western countries to poor southern countries. They expect us to bribe them into going along, even though both we and they know very well it will have no effect on the climate.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

You presented your chart as if it supported your claim that man made CO2 caused global warming.

Now you are ask us to just guess.

Yet you have the balls to call those who wish to apply the scientific method to your claims... all sort of names.

When Orwell was writing 1984... you are the kind of govt drone... he was picturing.

So if I tell you that gravity will make things go down and then drop a ball you would still ask for proof that gravity makes things go down. Alllllrighty then. You make no sense. At some point logic and observation needs to employed to determine proof.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

You AGW worrywarts ignore one question.

Let's say I concede your entire argument about warming, greenhouse gases, etc. What effect will any actions we take have on it?

The answer is nothing to next to nothing. As a practical matter, people are not going to accept going back to the levels of CO2 generation that your models say is needed. Even if we as a country punished ourselves and destroyed our economy to do so, the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, et al are not going to.

For the zealots, simply doing the "right" thing is far more important than any actual outcome or the cost. For the liberals, it's another chance to grab control of more of the economy. For the less developed countries, it's a chance to extort money from us.

The whole thing is a giant scam to transfer money from rich western countries to poor southern countries. They expect us to bribe them into going along, even though both we and they know very well it will have no effect on the climate.

You guys really have to it out of your head that AGW is some political power play/conspiracy. It's not. Really. The reason you may think that is simply because of the position taken by the GOP to protect their interests. Much of the power of the GOP comes from big business and no business is bigger than coal/oil.

Two words. Nuclear power. Those on the left need to look at it again and accept it as a necessary evil for now.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:


Two words. Nuclear power. Those on the left need to look at it again and accept it as a necessary evil for now.

Sort of interesting. The entire global warming push started when Margaret Thatcher was dealing with the coal mining strike in the U.K. She needed something to reduce the relevancy and power of the striking miners. She pushed nuclear power as an alternative using a number of obscure scientific reports citing 'global warming' (this was back when global cooling was big). Her government piled tons of public money into promoting global warming to break the coal strikers power. Of course, this was also helped by the nuclear industry in the U.K. also pouring money into media promotions citing how dirty coal was heating the earth -- in a self-serving campaign.

All of this is outlined in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video. I would urge you to watch it and learn.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You guys really have to it out of your head that AGW is some political power play/conspiracy. It's not. Really. The reason you may think that is simply because of the position taken by the GOP to protect their interests. Much of the power of the GOP comes from big business and no business is bigger than coal/oil.

Two words. Nuclear power. Those on the left need to look at it again and accept it as a necessary evil for now.

r u out of your fucking mind?
you are against CO@ even though you install air conditioners
you have no idea if CO2 and warming might lead to more food and a better planet...

yet you after seeing what happened at fukushima you think environmentalist should endorse nuclear power.

Are we trying to preserve the planet so we can fuck it all up at once?

I can not believe people like you exist -- really.

I can not imagine anyone being anti CO2 and pro nuclear unless they were being paid by one side or the other.

get a plane walk by fukushima and tell me that is the answer.
we here in CA may be getting irradiated slowly and you say... lets have some more invisible death instead of plant food which may or may not cause a little bit of warming.