Global Warming is a Myth, Rush Limbaugh said so!!!

NLXSK1 said:

Then you are reading shit into what I am saying.

The previous report was admittedly WRONG.

Click to expand...

Science has reached false conclusions back to the beginning. Scientists said the earth was flat, that the sun rotated around it and it was the center of the universe. I have plenty of evidence showing that many of the conclusions scientists have reached in the past was wrong.

Click to expand...

The scientific method is based on the creation of a hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is tested. If the hypothesis bears out under testing a conclusion may be reached (that can yet be proven wrong).

What we are dealing with here is more politics than science.

The hypothesis are:

1. The earth is warming at this time. (this is in dispute from the last 15 years of data) I would speculate that it is impossible to determine whether the globe will be warming or cooling tomorrow without any data nor proven hypothesis so all we have is the past.

Click to expand...

2. Man is a driving force of the global warming if #1 is true.

Now, scientists have created multiple MODELS of what they thing is happening and NONE of the data has matched their hypothesis. They have failed to demonstrate it. BUT... BECAUSE IT IS SOOOO IMPORTANT. We jump to a conclusion and begin to take action...

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

That is politics, not science.

I dont care whether the globe is warming or cooling. We have direct evidence that it has been much cooler and much warmer.

My point is and always has been that we need to develop technologies to adapt rather than spend trillions of dollars trying to change the weather.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

And don't quote these damn UN reports unless you have read every last word of both the Science and Action Bodies for Climate.

If you have not you do not see the scam. Oh, guess who has read every word? That is correct. I have.

Click to expand...

Just go back and see how they did this. They launched these two working groups in parallel. That is WRONG.

So, you are an idiot if you don't see the problem of launching a powerful Action Group, before there was ANY science.

Click to expand...

You would think the first year of science could decide if you even need an Action group. The ACTION group never has looked at the idea that no ACITON is necessary. That would be very stupid for the RICE BOWL.

But, if you are trying to take Action without Science, like they WERE doing already, then you need a Science drip spout, to back your play. That is politics, not science.

Then the Action group moved way too fast, on EGO, and began spending millions, and they need that proof. Like Cold Fusion, they can't get it.

Click to expand...

But, Cold Fusion didn't launch an Action Group to try to shove it down out throats. Believe me. I was hooked too. Then I studied.

Alas for you, (I'm made in the shade and smell like money and opportunity) this Action Group is on the $$ Power Rails, now, with no proof at all. Sounds just like the story of the Catholic Church to me.

Click to expand...

These are now 2 of the most Powerful de-facto beliefs on Earth, you poor tribbles. And one feeds the other with no facts at all.

Cart leading the horse, pals. Not science.

Click to expand...

Tripati describes her work:

We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice....This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.
We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago. We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.​

Tripati says it was "A slightly shocking finding", because

is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.​

It has been know from ice cores that CO2 levels have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years, and that todays CO2 levels are unprecedented over that period. But the findings from Tripati et al. that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new. [In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.]

Tripati's says her new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million, and "We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history." She says:

We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity.​

Click to expand...

The assessment comprises some 2,500 pages of text and draws on millions of observations and over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data from climate model simulations. Over 9,200 scientific publications are cited, more than three quarters of which have been published since the last IPCC assessment in 2007.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

You are ridiculous if you call that stupid graph evidence. Ha,...

What is stupid is the tortured statistical math that you cannot follow, that produced this chart in the first place. Bad data and bad technique.

It is like waving a piece of the "true cross." Not those fake ones....what a joke.

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

There you go again.

Doer the expert on everything, knows that every scientist that has ever collected data has done it incorrectly. Why are you not the president of the world yet? You're obviously the smartest person on the planet, and have omnipotent powers. How else could you determine that every piece of evidence that's ever been presented that shows the insanely easy to follow link between Co2 emissions and global warming is false?

There are links to the studies that go with the graphs, but I'm sure you've already read them all and have personally written rebuttals to all of their studies not only disproving their findings, but discrediting the scientists as well.

How do you find the time to be so amazing?

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Hey, asshole. Have read these climate reports? No. Why? You could not understand it anyway.

I work at being so amazing and I hold down a big time corporate job, making the big bucks. I have to smell around for money. I just glance in my wallet.

How do find the time to be so petty? You can read the damn reports. You could have not given up on your brain.

Click to expand...

I didn't give up. I don't believe it and I have the training and experience in science to know exactly why I don't.

Click to expand...

Do you think highly paid, educated people, don't smoke pot? You think it is impossible to know all sides of this silly non-science debate? We are not all backwards hippies. Most of us woke up.

Click to expand...

Stop looking so envious, it is unbecoming.

I have read them all. My very first post were a discussion with Mr. H about this. He called me a Denier. There is nothing to Deny.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

I am telling you there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. All made up, by the evil Saganists.

You guys never check the footnotes or something. I read these papers for a living and I can tell you, peer review is a start. But, which peers? Which Journals will even publish?

In my job I read this stuff, OK? And I learned long ago, when they begin the statistics, I better pay close attention. My job is the statistics of performance in data farms and people can try to prove anything. How they try is the question. I have the deep experience of sr. manager for 30 years in this deep world, and I responsible for millions a year in research budget.

Don't bother with your CV. Don't embarrass yourself.

I'm a speed reader and typer and you are lucky I practice here with my stoner buddies, among a giant amount of other tasks. So, while you yuck it up, your petty life, I multi-task and read Le Monde.

Does it seem amazing to you? Very usual for me. I have say, and I am just the mascot. The guys I work with make you look like a mutt.
But, they think I am amazing and now so do you.

Click to expand...

The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.

Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

No greenhouse effect has been model with real data. No greenhouse earth is more than a conjecture.

These are only called greenhouse gases in leap of faith that began with methane.

So, what do call this 15 year pause? When when finally folded in the satellite data for the last 15 years when have good observatoion....wooops.

Click to expand...

Nothing..flat. And if you extaroplated back the Sat set and threw out the bad land set as the Berkeley report does....wooops.

Click to expand...

Flat. No warning. The those on the UN Action Group could be hanged from fraud in some the countries they represent.

Now they have to prove warning to save their necks in some cases. Where did all those Billion go, for nothing? You know these effort are in parralel. One group goes to get something secientic, but the Action group takes action regardless.

This is politics and there is no real science, yet. This last UN report we see the horror of the Science group, backpedaling while the Action group minions are becoming more vicious.

Do you want to punish Climate Deniers.......if you could? Burn them?

Click to expand...

"I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise (for a decade it has been rising at a merely-linear 2 ppmv/year, against the IPCC’s projection of an exponential increase at today’s emission rates), how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will be expected to cause (around a third of what the IPCC projects), whether attempting to mitigate future “global warming” will make any real difference to the climate (it won’t: remember Canute), whether the cost of forestalling each degree of “global warming” will be disproportionate to the climatic benefit (it will), and whether focused adaptation to any change in the climate, where and if necessary, will be orders of magnitude cheaper than trying to prevent that change from occurring in the first place (yes)."

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

Just calling a spade a spade.

Click to expand...