Of course politicians and charlatans are trying to use the issue to accumulate power and wealth. That's what politicians and charlatans do. It doesn't invalidate science.

1:What is the earths correct temperature?

2: What is the correct amount of CO2?

And getting published. It is very difficult to get grants or publications for things that disagree with the beliefs of government employees in charge of grants and journal editors.

What is the total global natural production of co2?

What is the total man caused industrial co2 production? (I figure breathing is natural and can be ignored)

What reduction in co2 is needed to mitigate climate change? In what time frame?

What data is there that proves climate change can't be accomodated by a) us?  b) the natural world?

What is being done to develop co2 scrubbing/absorbing technology, either tech solutions, or more natural (green stuff) solutions?

Is co2 the problem, or is it just a marker?

The "normal" temperature is one in which there is no permanent ice anywhere on the planet, including the poles. This is a non-ice age condition, which earth has been in for the majority of its existence. Earth is currently in an ice age and has been without interruption for the past @2.7 million years.

If you truly desire the answers to your questions, credible resources have already been given to you, Grasshopper. Hot-linked, even. In red. Three inches north of this sentence. What you claim to seek is at your fingertips.

Global warming "science" is religious dogma.

The numbers keep changing when they go from the old raw data to the new models because the global warming believers manipulate and lie about the old data.

Are you familiar with the hockey stick graph?

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

It's bullshit, but it's peddled as "science".



Nice try.  GD is not even close to being a tech forum, nor representative of other gun forums on the internet that are much more strictly moderated.  Have you asked the ATF "what round for X animal" that you're hunting?  Or maybe recommendations on a carry firearm?  Because the only reason anyone ever has to go to the ATF is to ask them about the reguations


If the ATF released a story about, say, guns going to Mexico, and they said that increased funding and support for the ATF and restriction on US gun ownership was the only solution to be able to stop murders in Mexico, would you believe them?

If the ATF was giving research grants to universities and organizations in order to look into the "Iron River" of guns going to Mexico, would you simply say "they're the ATF, they're the authority, and I place my trust in them, and all the data must be correct, and other people are just deniers of science"?

If the ATF was found out "by some blogger saying something" that they were totally full of shit and completely corrupt and engaging in actively padding the stats for their own purposes through influencing research and actively messing with data, and there was a consensus of government and university gun experts that the ATF was entirely correct, would you question the ATF's objectivity, or would you go on believing the authority because they're the authority?  ... Despite the fact that "authority" is an agency that exists to perpetuate itself, has an institutional culture that means they'll only hire like-minded people, has stated goals that run one direction only, has support of a political party that agrees with those goals, and in any rational world would be considered objectively compromised in their research at best?

Climate Change for Arfcommers

Except that peer review comes from sources who are also being funded by politically-supported grants, and the culture that has sprung up around belief in global warming is such that those who question it are ostracized as "not scientists".

There are many scientists (Michael Mann among them) who have been found to be objectively fabricating data and lying, and yet their peers rally round them anyway, because to do otherwise is to be a global warming "denier" - a word specifically chosen to equate someone to Holocaust deniers.

If you don't agree with their consensus or if you find flaws in their data, you're a Nazi.

That is not science, yet they claim it is because they are the scientific establishment and thus they are the only ones fit to use the scientific method on their own work, which is 100% correct every time because they say so.

That's not how risk management works, and you know it.

First, you need to determine the risk.  What's the probability of it occurring, and how much will it cost to deal with it if it happens?  What's the probability that "the science" is wrong?  What's the probability that it's correct, but nothing bad will happen?  P * C = risk

Then you need to know what it'll cost to prevent or mitigate it.  What are the strategies?  What will they cost?  What's the probability that they will be successful in preventing the bad thing?

Then you see where the balance point is that gives you the lowest possible likely cost.


Nobody has done this.

And of course they haven't, because there's no money in it.  It's far more profitable to be alarmist about everything and claim that the world is going to end if we don't gut our industrial capability RFN.  There's power in that, because it's driven by public emotion.  
Emotion can be controlled and used for political means.  Real, straightforward logic is completely worthless in the political arena.

Except that in a culture of "scientists" where groups are given grant money based on whether or not their conclusions agree with those giving the grant money, and in a world where those doing the research are those who want to find the same conclusions, you have a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They will always find more reasons to agree with global warming despite any facts to the contrary.  Data that disagrees with their conclusion is intentionally suppressed because it means there might be flaws in their conclusions - and their conclusions are always political recommendations about how others should live.


If science to you is actually following evidence where it leads, I recommend reading the links about the Hockey Stick graph already posted in this thread.

I also recommend the Biship Hill blog.

I've been reading global warming stuff since the 1990s when it was pushed in school and it was just called the greenhouse effect.  I've read the popular stuff as well as some technical stuff, I read Science News until they decided to engage in advocacy rather than collection of data and discussions of research.

I'd recommend you look at data and points that oppose your conclusion, unless you just want to exercise a whole bunch of warm and comfy confirmation bias and deferring to authority that may be incorrect.

I've read the numbers.  Which is what makes me wonder if the climate oh-no's have.  Man could disappear tomorrow and at the very most change global CO2 production by less than 4%.  If 4% is on or near the precipice for climate disaster the earth is too finely tuned for us to be here.  Conversely, changing our habits in a painful way, say 10% globally, does virtually nothing, globally.

So, instead of curbing CO2 production, why don't we find some useful way to utilize CO2, lots of it.   You really don't hear much about that.  A few eccentrics occasionally talking about small algae farms etc, but thats about it.

I wish those morons at NASA and Goddard Lab and JPL and the National Academy would spend more time on Arfcom so they could understand how REAL science works.

Even if the probability is low, the consequence of global climate change is still catastrophic.  Hence, the resultant risk is still high; my statement still stands.

Won't happen.  Too many people got their anuses peppered over how global warming was politicized and used for a power grab.  They don't care about the ecological reasoning, why people in natural resources get freaked out about this.....they only see how it affects human-centric activities (such as governmental power, carbon credit tax/limited market problems, costs of reducing carbon emission, etc).  

Just like how we have some people who still can't wrap their heads around hunting licenses or why they are proper......because it prevents them from subsisting totally off of game meat to the detriment of all other hunters (who equally "own" that game animal just as much as the next citizen, mind you.......nor do they give a shit about the fact that hunting licenses are given out in numbers such that the population goals for that game animal in that area are met).

The debate about what's happening or why we are/should be concerned about this got derailed because some people in science got the activist bug and went full retard trying to force this concept down people's throats.  Naturally, they got some push-back because what they were essentially demanding was too much of a paradigm shift.

Then they doubled down and kept going, trying to find more and more convincing ways of showing just how right they are.  It really is a PR blunder, a big one.  

What they really need to do is produce a good 30 minute video that explains things in a much deeper way, provides a wide range of information, and to logically and factually support their claims.  They need to do this independently and to do it in a way that isn't politically motivated, which would allow people to understand the rationales behind what is being said without having to attach the negative political issues associated.

At this point, I'm pretty convinced that we are to the point where we need to be looking at ways we can cope with the potential problems that would arise IF GCC is true.....and if it's not.....so what.  

Everyone says diversify when they are talking about stock portfolios, but when it comes to natural science they become completely unable to do anything except what amounts to buying all the shares of one stock.  It's still a more sound decision to be pragmatic and have plans for whatever eventuality occurs rather than bitch, piss, moan about what everyone is afraid of until one side can't keep up the argument any longer.

Ah, appeal to authority and dismissal of evidence.

Try reading some of it:

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Yeah, those guys at NASA who consider their foremost goal to improve relations with the Muslim world.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/


Might be worthwhile to read something beyond the party line and then decide for yourself.  If you dismiss criticism offhand, which you seem to be doing by the snark reply, you aren't doing yourself any favors.

If you endeavor to practice the scientific method, it would require looking at evidence that may not support your conclusion.

Cue slow clap gif.

What is causing the climate change on mars? It is experiencing global warming too.

Fuck those data.

Taking the science out of things, if it is indeed fact that emissions cause climate change, then why out gov't isn't authorizing and subsidizing nuclear plant construction? All I ever hear is the problem and absolutely foolish solutions, I never hear any good answers to climate change's problems that face us.

 
It's better than nothing.  Here's a basic explanation of how it works.

*skeptical

Because it's not about data, it's about social justice on a global scale.

Data that is always omitted from "climate change" discussions.

There, I fixed the thread title for ya.

I'm kind of surprised they haven't gotten kids to shame their parent for bar-b-qs, diesel pickups, powersports or not having solar on the roof.

If it's not, we've shut down our coal plants, hamstrung our petrochemical production, reduced our own stability in the world, handed out money to other nations to not develop and redistributed wealth from the US to third world nations - all while China simply does not care and goes on becoming a greater world power.

The problem with your assertion is that "it's a PR problem".  Y'know, it might not just be a PR problem - it could be completely wrong.

The consequences of "doing something" where the invariable conclusion is to cripple our own economic and national interests are as catastrophic as the global warming believer's risk of "not doing something" - and to top it off, because China doesn't believe in the global warming dogma, they will still not care.  They will benefit from the rise of their nation while we cripple our own.  Their economic system will continue to expand while we implode.  Their utilization of resources will continue to increase while ours is reduced - the only thing we will be is weaker while they will be stronger.

Unless you propose a war with China to save the planet, the only solutions proposed by those who believe in the global warming nonsense are ones that are ultimately suicidal, just at varying speeds and of varying degrees of national martyrdom and with varying levels of tyranny visited on the individual.


You're stuck in a lifeboat with 3 days of food with your family and China and it's family.  China thinks they'll be rescued in about 3 days, so they're eating as they like and feeding their children how they like.  You think you may not get rescued for 3 months... so you eat less and force your children to eat less.  China doesn't reduce their portions, they just eat yours, you just starve to death first while you nobly starve your children.

And if you're saved in 3 days, all you've done is hurt yourself and your family based on a belief that's shown to be nonsense.

There, I fixed it for you.

This is why the true or false nature of climate change is no longer relevant. Politicians on one side of the argument have decided it's true, and are pushing forward with ideas and legislation that will have enormous effects on us, well beyond the scope of the climate.

Was that an attempt at humour?

That and because the politicians who have decided it isn't true are from nations that will continue to exploit all resources possible, pollute how they want, and laugh as we hamstring ourselves.

Joe Biden saying "let the Chinese build coal plants over there" just means that if we are all kumbaya on the same little blue planet, they will pollute us to death while we have our authorities crush us for our own good.


...and all the while Al Gore sells carbon indulgences to "save the planet" and makes himself rich off a scam that swindles the naiive and well-meaning and stigmatizes and crushes those who are critical of it.

You do realize that if the EU AND the US/Canada STOPPED using fossil fuels TODAY, the CO2 levels will still rise going forward, mainly because the "developing world" (mostly China and India) will keep injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere.  Yet, nobody is asking THOSE countries to cut back on emissions.

So, based on that fact alone, I am suspicious that the "urgency" of the issue is no where NEAR what some politicians make it out to be.  If it WERE, we would see a call for GLOBAL emissions reductions, and not just in the "first world" countries.

Well, that, and an outright dismissal of your "evidence".

Anonymous blogs in which the author doesn't have the honesty to identify him/herself, the content of which amounts to nothing more than an exhibit of thoroughly developed confirmation bias, are not valid rebuttals to...well...anything.

"If the evidence changes I will change my mind."

Yeah...right.

Long video, but the Greenland ice cores are discussed.

Conservation versus preservation/reservation.

The global warming gang, quite simply, is NOT into conservation of any kind.  They desire the specific political and social control to dictate who can use energy, at what price, and for what purposes.


A video?  Come on, dude.  The media doesn't matter.  The message does.  Global warming is a bullshit message, because it's used for bullshit reasons.

Intelligent people are not objecting to "the science" (or, more accurately, the data).  We object to the "so then what?" part of the argument.  We object to the corruption, favoritism, Solyndra, Al Gore, abuse of power, infringements on consumer and human rights, regressive taxation schemes, destruction of human life (particularly in 3rd world areas), political control of the agricultural supply (shit, ethanol in gasoline alone...), and so on.  All these idiotic and frequently downright evil activities are undertaken under the banner of global warming, and yet I'm expected to support them, because "the science" says so?

Fuck that.


You ask what's the harm if we're wrong.  "So what," you say.

Well, the "so what" is human lives.


Even in the US, all these schemes involve taking my money.  The $500M of government money that Solyndra blew - where'd it come from?  It didn't come from magic.  It was the taxed property of people, who needed to labor to create it.  That labor being functionally unpaid and compulsory.

Compulsory, unpaid labor...  that's called slavery.

I'm not even trying to promote anarchy or anything.  I understand well and good that taxes are as necessary as wildlife conservation.  But here's the thing - those activities place a responsibility upon the authority charged in regulating them, and they are done with the understanding that they provide a greater benefit than the harm they must cause by their existence.

Where that responsibility goes unfulfilled, or the harm exceeds the good, the programs should be shitcanned and the people responsible punished.


But the global warming crowd doesn't give a shit if it's done correctly or not.  They don't give a shit about cost/benefit, risk management, governmental ethics, social justice (the real kind, not the feminist buzzword), morality, or economic fairness.  All the warmists want is power - and I'm disinclined to give it to them, as they've shown themselves to be unworthy of the responsibility.  This judgment has nothing to do with any reading of the data.

Oh, good.

I love it when people dismiss things outright without reading.

The blog is just a summary.  But the data, which you choose to dismiss...

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Comes from this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
And this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

Who wrote some other papers, too:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/mcintyre_02.pdf

-

Meanwhile...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



But of course, if you dismiss anything that disagrees with you as "not a valid rebuttal" it's a wonderful way to handwave away any criticism.

Even better if you have an entire institution that's built around orthodoxy to that principle.


Not exactly sure how the scientific method is adhered to if you don't show your work, and if you omit large portions of your work, and hide raw data because you don't want it looked at.

Climates change.  That is not in dispute.



The direction of the current change ... the science does not have a good track record of predicting accurately.



The cause of the current change IS in dispute.



Correlation does not equal causation.  People with a vested interest in Man being the bad guy cease on anything they can to validate their beliefs.





So... Climates change.  The way you deal with that is by having a robust economy that can afford to mitigate the possible effects as they occur.  What you don't do is strangle business with regulation and taxes that destroy the economy... don't stop the change... and ensure that the needed mitigations if and or when they are needed can not be afforded... and therefore aren't done.

Dude...just stop.

Let's start from the beginning, since you seem to have a hard time grasping this.  Blogs are not evidence (no matter how many times you post them in the same thread).  They're *opinions*.  In the realm of physical sciences, blogs have no standing as evidence and must be dismissed out-of-hand.

In other words...the "sceptical-mind" (sic) is bullshit.

There are plenty of intelligent people objecting to "the science", too, because of manipulation of the data.  As noted already in this thread, the "so then what" part of the argument has already been decided, and it's been decided for years.

Co-author John Holdren is/was Obama's "Science Czar".







There are a bunch of arguments for resource control as well as population control and sterilization of the population as well as legal ways to get around it.

All in the name of "save the world" because "the science is settled" that we will face global overpopulation that will destroy the environment.

I'm no climate scientist, but I do work in statistics and would like to specifically comment on the highlighted section.

 

The first step in predictive modeling (after you have prepared your data) is to take note of what variables appear to be correlated. You are right that correlation does not equal causation. However, causation is not necessary for predictive purposes. Even if you do not understand the causal relationship, or even if there is no direct causal relationship, a model based on correlations can often still have predictive value.


However, as I understand it, we are now past the stage of simply noting a correlation between historical CO2/methane concentration and historical temperature. We also understand the causal relationship -- namely, that "greenhouse" gases like CO2 and methane absorb and trap heat that would otherwise be radiated into space.

lol

Click the link:
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

You'll find it's a paper written by this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick

Who teaches here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Guelph

Who also co-wrote this paper:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/mcintyre_02.pdf

Now, if you want to dismiss papers written by actual academics because the easiest way to find one of them is to find the one hosted on a blog (and with a convenient summary written on one), then I suppose that one with stanford.edu connected to it is meaningless, too, because "it's on the internet and the internet is full of fake things and thus the internet is not a valid rebuttal to anything", or some other such handwaving nonsense.

And this was just taking a moment to look up people who'd been critical of Michael Mann's bogus Hockey Stick graph.


That's not even getting into the lawsuit Mann's involved in.

appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

btw, its fucking cold.

Because Haliburton SUV's aren't banning themselves?

Also its harder to force legislation upon the masses if you dont have data that proves that the american lifestyle is killing baby polarbear cubs in the Sahara.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

this is the start of how they explain that...



 



more here

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html



There's some argument about cycles in earth's rotation where it gets warmer and then CO2 is released, but either way, there's more to be researched.

-

Separately, a list of global warming predictions that never came true (with piles of links):

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

...a fact that does not render an appeal invalid.



This, coming from an Alaskan.  lol

You should join us in the garden spot of Michigan...good ol' Warren.  Looking forward to having a couple days above 32F so I can wash my car!

As I understand it, there are a couple responses to this question:


1) Temperature varies significantly throughout the world. Sometimes (e.g., an ice age), temperature moves in broadly the same direction in multiple locations. Other times (e.g., a prolonged, regional drought), temperature in one area moves out of sync with temperature in other areas. For this reason, when scientists reconstruct an "average" historical world temperature, they must combine samples from many places, not just one (e.g., Greenland in this graph). This inevitably requires a certain amount of judgment, which of course attracts criticism.


Here's how I see it: If you hire ten different financial advisors, they may all have a different take on your past investing behavior and they may all slightly differ in the advice they give you. They may also have differing interests, and some may even have conflicts of interest. However, if nine out of ten agree that you need to save more and own more stocks, you should probably give it serious consideration instead of clinging solely to the advice of the remaining advisor, which strikes me as what climate skeptics are doing.


2) The root cause of "global warming" is the causation between higher greenhouse gas concentration and higher temperature, which this graph does not address and which has been established through many other types of scientific analysis, even in non-climate-related fields.


3) Even if warming and cooling occurred before we had factories and cars, that doesn't mean that factories and cars do not have any influence today. I assume that's what you meant when you asked whether this "debunks the whole theory."

One volcanic eruption can put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than mankind will in a century.  

One volcanic eruption can put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than mankind will in a century.  

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php



 

Global temperatures are rising faster and faster. Sea levels are rising faster and faster. Weather patterns are changing faster and faster. There will be dramatic impacts on food production. Enormous populations will be displaced.

Non of the above is intelligently disputable. Not that that stops Arfcom.