Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

How much faith do you put in these scientists who in the 1990's were baffled by El Niño....you're telling me they can get confused by a weather cycle but their computer models for the next 50-100 years are spot on?

Yes I doubt their predictions.


Medical science is a good point there have been failings there but there has also been tangible success. Where's the tangible success for the global warming crowd? There has been 0 warming since 1998 but we're pumping out more CO2....odd that considering how close to killing the planet we are. By Al Gore's clock we have about 1 1/2 years left before the whole world burns. You can tell me Al is not a scientist but correct me if I'm wrong he won the Nobel Prize......along with the IPCC whose models (along with Gore's) are well off the mark when compared to reality.

[Andre]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

[bcollins]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

You are correct in a lot of ways. Industry scientists are usually bought and paid for. I'm talking about true academics. We're usually the reason corporations have to hire their own 'experts' - we actually go by what the science says, instead of the man writing the checks. Those type of scientists are scum in my opinion. They confuse the laymen with complex terminology and a whole bunch of bullshit, which is clearly crap to someone in the field. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays just believe whatever side lines up with their personal ideology rather than trying to determine where the truth lies.

[El Kabong]

Well alright let's talk specifics

Atmosphere
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Trace Elements - 0.1%

Of that CO2 varies from 0.03% to 0.04%

Roughly 96% of THAT CO2 is produced by NATURE leaving around 3.5% produced by humans and it's destroying the entire world.


CO2 isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas, that title goes to H2O by a wide margin. But CO2 is destroying the climate..... or 3.5% of the CO2 released in to the atmosphere is. Seems legit

[bcollins]

Well alright let's talk specifics

Atmosphere
Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 1%
Trace Elements - 0.1%

Of that CO2 varies from 0.03% to 0.04%

Roughly 96% of THAT CO2 is produced by NATURE leaving around 3.5% produced by humans and it's destroying the entire world.


CO2 isn't even the most prevalent greenhouse gas, that title goes to H2O by a wide margin. But CO2 is destroying the climate..... or 3.5% of the CO2 released in to the atmosphere is. Seems legit

Seems like you're dodging the challenge. I'm aware of the chemical composition of our atmosphere - I learned that in middle school. I want you to put up or shut up.

There has been 0 warming since 1998.

This is your claim. Show me evidence to support your claim. Find a source of data that you believe that is also reputable; i.e., I assume you won't choose NASA/NOAA. There are other sources of data from many other countries. The only criteria is that it must be a reputable source of data - not just a joe schmoe website.

Use this data to convince me of your claim. When I get some extra time, I'll use multiple data sources to rebut your claim. You must also detail your method of arriving at your conclusion.

Simply citing a website is not sufficient. I want to see the details. Since you pose this claim as true, then back it up.

[Andre]

This world is fucked up, just look at the tobacco industry and cancers,agricultural chemicals and lymphomas, pharmaceuticals masking of root causes.The Sugar industry and diabetes!
They all have their own experts paid well to find shit out for the affirmative. Science and medicine is split legally by the buck.Doctors have calendars with chemical companies names printed on them sitting on their desks FFS. McDonalds build their restaurants in childrens hospitals out here .

You are correct in a lot of ways. Industry scientists are usually bought and paid for. I'm talking about true academics. We're usually the reason corporations have to hire their own 'experts' - we actually go by what the science says, instead of the man writing the checks. Those type of scientists are scum in my opinion. They confuse the laymen with complex terminology and a whole bunch of bullshit, which is clearly crap to someone in the field. Unfortunately, a lot of people nowadays just believe whatever side lines up with their personal ideology rather than trying to determine where the truth lies.

Governing laws can get bought and sold.

[Andre]

I still think our biggest problem will come from the ocean because current change there means irreversible global climate change. We kill shit out there too, large amounts of it underwater forests, we kill the reefs that have taken hundreds of thousands of years to grow and we till underwater mountains like the earth with drag nets in search of orange roughy and other deep sea fish. Then theres the upper reefs bleached dry by the ozone layer depletion. We shave old forests bare for cash and turn it into fields with cows that release pure methane back up there and wonder why the rain clouds are attracted elsewhere. Meanwhile petrol is cheaper than bottled water.

We could now argue that by polluting the air with cars and industry we now create a barrier of smog that is protecting some things from the increased suns radiation from depletion .

Swings and roundabouts pay as you come pay as you leave,they'll tax you on what ever they can tax you on and try to balance the books with that percentage paying for people to back their cause; meanwhile the real issue is out there slowly grinding to a halt and about turn around and work in reverse.

[bcollins]

Here's a link to the UK's Hadley Centre site. I believe they have already compiled data sets, if you want to take a look.

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

[bcollins]

World Meteorological Organization: (Lots of links to other datasets)

World Meteorological Organization Homepage | WMO

University of Virginia Climatology Office: (another link page)

Online Climate Data Sources

RealClimate.org: (See the contributors page for the administrators and their credentials, also with links to multiple datasets)

RealClimate: Rossby waves and surface weather extremes

[El Kabong]

NOAA admitted to the warming "plateau" in their 2012 State of the Climate Address and RSS the satellite data backed up this claim. People no doubt say "It's nothing, it means nothing unless this plateau lasts 20 years". This warming "stagnation" is a model buster....but I suppose that means nothing.

I'm not going to launch a satellite, I'm not going to start collecting my own data because I'm not a scientist and while I suppose your point could be to get me to admit as much but again the professional scientists have been wrong which is why NASA and NOAA have revisited their computer models and made adjustments. Are the adjustments better? Closer to the truth? Who is to say? Scientists made predictions for an ice age in the 1970's that has not come to fruition. They've predicted warming and the stagnation poked holes in that theory. Now it's a general cover all of climate change by using hand picked random weather events....I mean what's the difference between Y2K and The Mayan Calendar and these Climate scientist when they are fudging data and/or skewing data to achieve the hypothesis they want. No empirical data, no correlations, models that are consistently wrong....why trust that science? If you're looking for answers and you're constantly wrong then you're no different than someone not looking for answers or one who is wrong on purpose.

But go ahead and ridicule me

[bcollins]

How much faith do you put in these scientists who in the 1990's were baffled by El Niño....you're telling me they can get confused by a weather cycle but their computer models for the next 50-100 years are spot on?

As far as I can tell, the El Niño phenomenon of that era were something of an anomaly. Scientists had not seen such an occurrence in modern times, so of course they were put off. You seem to believe that climate science should be perfection incarnate while you allow medical science to grow and learn. Science is science, bud. With the few exceptions I've noted previously, all science must defer to the current data and change to incorporate new information. That's the whole damn point. If human beings suddenly generated the ability of telekinesis, then medical science would be baffled and then work hard to try to explain it. That's the whole game.

Yes I doubt their predictions.

This is my shocked face.

Medical science is a good point there have been failings there but there has also been tangible success. Where's the tangible success for the global warming crowd? There has been 0 warming since 1998 but we're pumping out more CO2....odd that considering how close to killing the planet we are. By Al Gore's clock we have about 1 1/2 years left before the whole world burns. You can tell me Al is not a scientist but correct me if I'm wrong he won the Nobel Prize......along with the IPCC whose models (along with Gore's) are well off the mark when compared to reality.

There has been 0 warming since 1998. Bold claim - especially with absolutely zilch to back it up. You can say that you have an 18 inch pecker too, but until you provide proof, no one is gonna believe you.

I challenge you to offer scientific proof of this claim. Using a source of respected data - you can choose, so long as it is a reputable source (and www.idontbelievesciencecauseidontunderstandit.com does not count) - I challenge you to show me the veracity of your claim. When I get a chance, which may be a couple of days, I'll gather data from at least three different sources and do the analysis myself. This is not modeling - we're not talking about predicting the future - but using established data to support your claim.

Note that links to websites making this claim do not constitute proof. I want to see your data and your method for making such a claim. Time to walk the walk instead of talking the talk.