Sigh. Here are more experts on climate change. But what do they know?

[brblx]

Do yourself a favor and stop preaching about "deniers and conspiracy theories" and take a good look at the plethora of actual information available. Just search this page for any and every term involving climate change, it's there.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

Like this interesting read that is only one of about a dozen like it.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

your links are laughable. please step outside of your republican troll cave and 'take a good look at the plethora of actual information available.'

 

[brblx]

That the climate is changing is pretty much undeniable, it always has been. Why the climate is changing is what the real question is.
I'd love to know how it was decided that it was caused by people.

when things that are scientifically known to be related are plotted on a graph and the lines point the same way, it's called a 'trend.'

 

[shira]

That the climate is changing is pretty much undeniable, it always has been. Why the climate is changing is what the real question is.
I'd love to know how it was decided that it was caused by people.

Perhaps this is what climatologists spend decades of their time doing. Obviously, though, they're wasting their time because when they publish reports stating that humanity is making a major contribution to climate change, the non-climatologist right-wing hordes proclaim that the climatologists can't possibly know that.

I know the feeling. I make carefully written, well researched, accurate posts, and what I get back from the right-wing, non-climatologist hordes is mush.

 

[shira]

your links are laughable. please step outside of your republican troll cave and 'take a good look at the plethora of actual information available.'

I actually SHOWED him why they were laughable. But it's pointless. He followed it up with a post pointing to a site that said CO2 levels were higher 1.4 billion years ago, so why worry?

I'm beginning to have grave doubts about natural selection.

 

[monovillage]

You provided links to studies that used falsified data from CRU. Don't blame us for what the scientists at CRU did to totally undermine the work of any other researcher that used their corrupt data and their tainted models, blame the hack scientists that did it.

 

[silverpig]

Edit: This poster is reassured because earth's CO2 levels were much higher 1.4 BILLION years ago.

Did you even bother to read your own link?



Now, what do you suppose might be the effect of high CO2 levels with our sun at its current level of radiance?

Go back to sleep.

Yeah, so they also found that high equatorial clouds with current levels of CO2 would have kept the earth warm back then.

 

[brblx]

I actually SHOWED him why they were laughable. But it's pointless. He followed it up with a post pointing to a site that said CO2 levels were higher 1.4 billion years ago, so why worry?

I'm beginning to have grave doubts about natural selection.

ain't it grand? because of government intervention and science (as opposed to chaos and religion, the hammer and sickle of the republican party), dumb people have somehow evolved beyond natural selection. we may as well have created skynet.

'idiocracy' looks more and more like a real glimpse of the future by the day.

 

[shira]

You provided links to studies that used falsified data from CRU. Don't blame us for what the scientists at CRU did to totally undermine the work of any other researcher that used their corrupt data and their tainted models, blame the hack scientists that did it.

There is no falsified data from CRU. You believe there is because it reinforces your preconceptions.

If you think otherwise, show me a link to a qualified, disinterested source that provides PROOF that there's is falsified data. Since you hold climatologists to such rigorous standards of proof, I'm holding you to the same rigorous standard of proof. PROVE your assertion or shut the fvck up with these baseless claims.

 

[brblx]

but there were emails and they used words like 'trick' and 'cooling'.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Edit: This poster is reassured because earth's CO2 levels were much higher 1.4 BILLION years ago.

Did you even bother to read your own link?

"A 1993 model by Jim Kasting of Pennsylvania State University estimates that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the Earth's early atmosphere must have been 10 times to as much as 10,000 times today's level, in order to compensate for the young (and fainter) sun."

Now, what do you suppose might be the effect of high CO2 levels with our sun at its current level of radiance?

Go back to sleep.

Those levels of C02 were produced naturally, not by humans, that is the point I am trying to make.

 

[shira]

Yeah, so they also found that high equatorial clouds with current levels of CO2 would have kept the earth warm back then.

Ah, so you're saying you BELIEVE what climatologists theorize about early earth? That must mean you believe even more what climatologists say about much more recent earth, right?

 

[silverpig]

There is no falsified data from CRU. You believe there is because it reinforces your preconceptions.

If you think otherwise, show me a link to a qualified, disinterested source that provides PROOF that there's is falsified data. Since you hold climatologists to such rigorous standards of proof, I'm holding you to the same rigorous standard of proof. PROVE your assertion or shut the fvck up with these baseless claims.

The sad thing is, the CRU can't prove that it isn't falsified because they lost it and haven't released all of their code and methodology. And they're supposed to.

 

[shira]

Those levels of C02 were produced naturally, not by humans, that is the point I am trying to make.

Many animal species went extinct before humanity existed. Therefore, human behavior has never contributed to the extinction of animal species.

I'm so relieved.

 

[Carmen813]

Release the raw data and code. Let science prevail.

If this happened, would you care? More importantly, would you know how to interpret it?

 

[silverpig]

Ah, so you're saying you BELIEVE what climatologists theorize about early earth? That must mean you believe even more what climatologists say about much more recent earth, right?

Wow, now I KNOW you're a propaganda machine. Where did I use the word 'believe'? You're putting words in my mouth. I merely outlined a possible alternative explanation which did not rely on CO2.

 

[Jaskalas]

That the climate is changing is pretty much undeniable, it always has been. Why the climate is changing is what the real question is.
I'd love to know how it was decided that it was caused by people.

They saw CO2 and temperature correlate and assumed that it functioned a specific way. Of course they won't tell you that they got it backwards and CO2 follows, not leads, temperature.

 

[monovillage]

There is no falsified data from CRU. You believe there is because it reinforces your preconceptions.

If you think otherwise, show me a link to a qualified, disinterested source that provides PROOF that there's is falsified data. Since you hold climatologists to such rigorous standards of proof, I'm holding you to the same rigorous standard of proof. PROVE your assertion or shut the fvck up with these baseless claims.

An impossibility since no one that is "disinterested" will be posting about CRUs falsified data and rigged models. Anything that is posted by your rules would be thrown out by your rules.

 

[Robor]

LOL! Somebody has been hanging out at realclimate.org. I've been keeping an eye on their marching orders.

LOL... Oh the irony. :awe:

 

[Robor]

We already have so many Climategate threads, did we really need this one?

Still, one must feed the maw -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/ts_alt_afp/usweatherstorm_20091209221347

It might just be me, but does it feel cold in here?

No, it doesn't feel cold here. We're been running our A/C down here in FL because it's been over 80F and warmer if you factor in the humidity.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting. I provide links to scientific studies by climatologists. Or to statements by groups of climatologists. You, on the other hand, provide links to weather reports? And in your mind, these two kinds of links are equivalent?

I guess when there's no actual science to support YOUR position, YOU have to make something up.

Hey, that makes him a climatologist!

 

[Robor]

Hey, that makes him a climatologist!

That's a mighty broad brush you've got there.

 

[werepossum]

That's a mighty broad brush you've got there.

Why thank you. <blush>

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You didn't answer the question.

And raw data among privately funded research is private until it's peer reviewed. You can thank our Constitution.

And please tell me...who's the peers that reviewed the CRU data?

 

[dainthomas]

They saw CO2 and temperature correlate and assumed that it functioned a specific way. Of course they won't tell you that they got it backwards and CO2 follows, not leads, temperature.

Actually pirates lead temperature according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PiratesVsTemp_English.jpg.

This correlation is further reinforced by the cooling trend during the last several years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global pirate population.

 

[monovillage]

This won't meet Shiras "disinterested" criteria, but it's an good article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/