... even if they were a right wing think tank it's cool to ignore everything they say because you disagree with their political standing? ... way to counter something someone said that nothing to do with politics with a political counter.
... even if they were a right wing think tank it's cool to ignore everything they say because you disagree with their political standing? ... way to counter something someone said that nothing to do with politics with a political counter.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
Let me get this straight, who are the deniers again? It really is Dan Rather disease. It is made up, but we know it is true.
Ptolemaic astronomy was a consensus too.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,518
- 592
- 126
Yeah if the US govt ponies up $100b for the global warming cause, do think research facilities are ever going to find that global warming does not exist?
PJABBER
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Interesting illustration of the differences between the two sides of AGW -
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/
Last edited:
PJABBER
Diamond Member
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
An interesting interactive illustration of the largest carbon emitters in different regions of the world and the percentage of increase or decrease in the rate of carbon emission.
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0911/globalemissions/flash.html
http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/0911/globalemissions/flash.html
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Do you wonder how AGW became the "consensus" ? Here's one of the reasons how.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
From the article : "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
Scientific consensus is not reached when you stifle opposing views, bar opposing scientists from publishing and collude to delete information from FOI requests.
" Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
… [unrelated]..
Cheers
Phil "
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
From the article : "All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it -- more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred -- over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
Scientific consensus is not reached when you stifle opposing views, bar opposing scientists from publishing and collude to delete information from FOI requests.
" Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
… [unrelated]..
Cheers
Phil "
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
How and why The IPCC disappeared the little ice age & the medievial warm period.
How and why The IPCC disappeared the little ice age & the medievial warm period.
Wikipedia was involved involved as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...st-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
This particular indivual has been removed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...lley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...st-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/
This particular indivual has been removed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...lley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
One need look no further than this thread for proof of MMGW. The heat coming off this ferocious circle jerk is melting ice thousands of miles away.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,518
- 592
- 126
wiretap
Senior member
- Sep 28, 2006
- 642
- 0
- 71
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
The evidence for significant GCR climate forcing continues to build. I wish CERN would hurry up.
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.
In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."
New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.
The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming
WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."
His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.
In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."
New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.
The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,930
- 3,908
- 136
It could go a long way toward explaining why there has been disproportionate warming at the poles, something current climate models haven't handled well (meaning, not handled at all).
Unfortunately, I predict this will quickly get buried and the author labeled an oil company stooge.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,518
- 592
- 126
It actually makes some sense...CFCs causing the hole in the ozone...we quit using CFC's hole starts to repair itself...temps come back down.
What I want to know is how the ozone hole CFC vs CO2 paradox vortex thing is going to play out....
They certainly can't say " hole in ozone was no big deal " LOL
No, it's a request for data from credible sources, what EVERYONE here should be doing instead of latching on to information that happens to parrot what they already believe.
Attempting to equate a consensus in the medieval period with modern science is incredibly dishonest and you know it. This is not simply because of your implication that because a consensus CAN be wrong that this one is, but also science then and now are completely and utterly dissimilar. I have no idea why you would try to make this comparison.
So if it was a leftist think tank it would of been ok then? Being unwilling to listen to someone who has to say something that you might not agree with is stupidity. Not ignorance, but stupidity.
No, it wouldn't be okay either way. Why on earth would you think that it would be? We're looking for credible sources as I have said repeatedly, free market think tanks are not good vehicles for the analysis of climatology data.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
As opposed to those bastions of accountability and purity who are funded totally by government. The very fact that their career funding and ultimate success requires CAGW being perceived as a crisis of unmatched proportions proves their purity and lack of bias.
Let us all now turn to page 37 in our hymnals and sing "Government is pure".
That's the key. This has turned the CRU and IPCC into totally uncredable sources. Their data should never be used again - source data "lost/deleted". Without the raw data this scandal just shows the modified data are not to be trusted at all.
never mind the fact that there are plenty of other sources of data that come to pretty much the same conclusions.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter