Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

Yeah it's a big conspiracy committed by all those jesus-doubting educated types. Those college people are always keeping a brutha down.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

Climategate itself was a hoax - by the media. They made a big deal out of nothing except some lazy methodology, there was nothing falsified and it had no effect on the science. Four independent reports confirmed this.

Seriously, if there's going to be a hoax between two groups, scientists and the media, which do you think is more likely? You won't get an answer from the media.

 

wrong- read the quotes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23966774/Climate-Gate-The-Email-Quotes

 

When I see some science presented to me that says within a shadow of a doubt that CO2 emissions are directly and linearly causing global warming (and not perhaps the other way about) I'll believe it. But the way I see it, there is no way they can claim this hypothesis with the degree of certainty that they are. I don't think it is a hoax, I just think they are making links between their measurements and the conclusions they are drawing, because they want it to be true. They have been funded by the government to get this result, and they have worked towards that looking for any clues they can find that support it. It's just not good science.

 

There's nothing there to support the claims of a hoax. Just like your graphs, those paragraphs are all taken out of context - which is exactly why they show only one or two paragraphs, instead of the whole email.

Instead of simply posting websites, maybe you could tell us what exactly you have a problem with so we can discuss it properly? Because we've done that before and you've been unable to respond except by posting more bullshit sites.

That's not true. Who are "they"? We're talking about thousands of climatologists, physicists, geologists etc. Maybe you could specifically point out what you have a problem with out of the IPCC reports instead of making broad-sweeping statements that mean nothing.

 

I am linking independent sources here and you have only sources corrupted by the global warming hoax billions
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

 

The scientists who published this research, claimed it is 100% cast iron science and anyone who dares to question it is labeled as some kind of a conspiracy nut who doesn't know what they are talking out.

They claim it is a totally 100% reliable hypothesis, then when you remind them that nothing can be proved 100% they then say oh yeah sure that's true, but we should carry on along the precautionary principle anyway, which I actually have nothing against. But I think there are many other reasons why we should be scaling down our production of oil other than CO2 though.

Has anyone ever done a controlled laboratory experiment that shows that a miniscule rise in CO2 levels give rise to a green house effect? Seems like a fairly straight forward experiment, yet I have still to see any research published on this. I have asked several people in debates about this, but they all wanted to focus on my "zombie arguments".

I'm off to get baked in the sun now, while it lasts. We appreciate things like global warming in Scotland you see.:sunny:

 

Yes. Over 100 years ago
http://www.bibnum.education.fr/files/Arrhenius-texte.pdf

 

OK so that proves that what they are saying is right, an experiment done in the 19th century.

While I don't refute the validity of the science of that time I am afraid it's just not advanced enough in terms of measurement technology.

I haven't read it, but I will have a look later when I'm not pissed, ok. Thanks for replying with it, I really appreciate the source I've been curious about that for a while.

Surely someone must have repeated that experiment, or hopefully a more elaborate and accurate variation? Why not. It would go some way to persuading of case for the AGWH anyway. I'm sitting on the fence really, I cannot say one way or the other if CO2 is causing global warming. I think it's a pretty insignificant factor in the grand scheme of things.

So presumably someone probably has done this experiment in more recent times. Why haven't we heard about it then?

Seriously, I remember learning about this at school, and it's been in the news ever since, but I've never once heard of such experimentational evidence for the theory.

Maybe the results showed that, as I suspect, minor variation in the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has a largely insignificant effect.

:sunny:

 

Pfft evolution, Darwin's Origin of Species is 150 years old, how can that possibly be accurate!

In science, old is good. It means it's been established for that long. You don't have to keep repeating Copernicus' measurment of the planets every week to show they revolve around the sun.

And yeah, no doubt people have found problems with Arrhenius' work, and reported them. Then others reported on that. There isn't a need to keep repeating old experiments when there is nothing wrong with them.

 

It's not the same thing.

And besides, Darwin's theory was wrong in many ways. Evolution is in fact way more complex than he had the mathematical mind to comprehend at the time. He wasn't wrong in so many ways though.

Everything evolves, including knowledge. Have you ever thought what knowledge is?

I'll look at it. But you can't rely on it because light technology, temperature measurements and everything else were not sufficient at the time.

 

That's the problem - what you want is not so straightforward. The initial science evolved into a vast and complex mess of papers, building upon past ones, summarising or or demolishing them, because that's how science operates. It would be nice if it were more systematic.

 

That's the way it works because that's the way things work.

Have you ever tried solving an easy puzzle?

Science is here to deceive us, for all eternity. Get used to it.

 

New NASA satellite data against global warming
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

 

The question is whether we should pay any attention to an article which uses the world "alarmist" to refer to a scientist - and uses it 23 times!

The other question is whether to pay any attention whatsoever to a science news source from a political institute pushing "free market solutions"

Here's a real article on the motives of the institute responsible for this
"news": http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html

 

Species are moving north in search of colder temperatures:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14576664

 

surface warming induced by globalization
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015452.shtml

 

So......???? So what???? Sudden urbanization increases regional average temperatures somewhat. A fact that affects only a very, very small area of the Earth's surface and has no real bearing on the measured increase in average temperatures over the entire surface of the planet.

I'm wondering, middy, do you even bother to read the links you post or are you just incapable of understanding what they mean?

 

Here an interesting article for beginners in meteorology

Atmospheric aerosols and temperatures

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

 

Here's a very well written, well referenced, and very interesting and detailed hyperlinked history of the development of the current deep scientific understanding of one of the most important aspects of modern climate science, written by the eminent science historian and physicist, Dr. Spencer Weart, former Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The history is very detailed and takes a while to read through so here is the summary for those who'd like a quick overview of the facts.

Summary: the Story in a Nutshell