We don't deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas, we don't deny the fact that humans and our technology produce CO2 and we don't deny that there is a greenhouse effect.  

 

Our position is not based on denying those facts, its based on accepting the entire picture of the climate and atmospheric composition.  

 

In reality CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas and in reality its not even close.  The most powerful greenhouse gas is actually Water Vapor which occurs naturally and we can do nothing to affect.  This alone counts for 95% of the greenhouse effect.  Then you have the more complex carbon molecules that are orders of magnitude stronger than CO2.  When you weight out intensity human presence and human activity accounts for roughly about one quarter of one percent (.26%) of the green house effect.  We see this in the data.  The population of the earth has doubled over the last 40 years, our technological advances have raced ahead and we see the two most populous nations on the planet going through their own break out of the middle class.  All that correlates to an exponential increase in CO2 emissions, while at the same time we are looking at a flat temperature curve for the better part of 2 decades.  That supports the above weighted view of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and how that affects surface temperatures and contradicts AGCC. 

 

Taking a closer look, we are beginning to see data manipulation and furious recalculations on the part of those who espouse AGCC.  Science is fundamentally the pursuit of truth.  When you see people who have a vested financial interest in advancing a certain conclusion sending emails proposing to change the peer review process to keep dissenting opinions from qualified climate scientists from being taken seriously on the world stage then you are dealing with a political movement and not a scientific one.  

---

We don't deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas, we don't deny the fact that humans and our technology produce CO2 and we don't deny that there is a greenhouse effect.


Our position is not based on denying those facts, its based on accepting the entire picture of the climate and atmospheric composition.


In reality CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas and in reality its not even close. The most powerful greenhouse gas is actually Water Vapor which occurs naturally and we can do nothing to affect. This alone counts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Then you have the more complex carbon molecules that are orders of magnitude stronger than CO2. When you weight out intensity human presence and human activity accounts for roughly about one quarter of one percent (.26%) of the green house effect. We see this in the data. The population of the earth has doubled over the last 40 years, our technological advances have raced ahead and we see the two most populous nations on the planet going through their own break out of the middle class. All that correlates to an exponential increase in CO2 emissions, while at the same time we are looking at a flat temperature curve for the better part of 2 decades. That supports the above weighted view of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and how that affects surface temperatures and contradicts AGCC.


Taking a closer look, we are beginning to see data manipulation and furious recalculations on the part of those who espouse AGCC. Science is fundamentally the pursuit of truth. When you see people who have a vested financial interest in advancing a certain conclusion sending emails proposing to change the peer review process to keep dissenting opinions from qualified climate scientists from being taken seriously on the world stage then you are dealing with a political movement and not a scientific one.

Plus old Sol went through a strong period for 20 years and now he's settled down. They don't talk about that either since man can't do anything about it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

We don't deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas, we don't deny the fact that humans and our technology produce CO2 and we don't deny that there is a greenhouse effect.


Our position is not based on denying those facts, its based on accepting the entire picture of the climate and atmospheric composition.


In reality CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas and in reality its not even close. The most powerful greenhouse gas is actually Water Vapor which occurs naturally and we can do nothing to affect. This alone counts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Then you have the more complex carbon molecules that are orders of magnitude stronger than CO2. When you weight out intensity human presence and human activity accounts for roughly about one quarter of one percent (.26%) of the green house effect. We see this in the data. The population of the earth has doubled over the last 40 years, our technological advances have raced ahead and we see the two most populous nations on the planet going through their own break out of the middle class. All that correlates to an exponential increase in CO2 emissions, while at the same time we are looking at a flat temperature curve for the better part of 2 decades. That supports the above weighted view of human contribution to the greenhouse effect and how that affects surface temperatures and contradicts AGCC.


Taking a closer look, we are beginning to see data manipulation and furious recalculations on the part of those who espouse AGCC. Science is fundamentally the pursuit of truth. When you see people who have a vested financial interest in advancing a certain conclusion sending emails proposing to change the peer review process to keep dissenting opinions from qualified climate scientists from being taken seriously on the world stage then you are dealing with a political movement and not a scientific one.

Mm hmm. So you believe in an international conspiracy amongst climate scientists? I assume this is about world domination then? Think it's the Lizard People? My money's on Lizard People. Wish someone would tell the pope tho, he looks funny enough in that a hat let alone decrying such utter nonsense.


Or is it for funding? The greedy scientists always wringing their hands, picking up nickels. God knows that's why they got into the science game--the big bucks!



...



If you were genuinely interested in talking about magnitudes, I can show you where you're wrong.

---

Mm hmm. So you believe in an international conspiracy amongst climate scientists? I assume this is about world domination then? Think it's the Lizard People? My money's on Lizard People. Wish someone would tell the pope tho, he looks funny enough in that a hat let alone decrying such utter nonsense.


Or is it for funding? The greedy scientists always wringing their hands, picking up nickels. God knows that's why they got into the science game--the big bucks!


 

 

This boys and girls is a classic liberal tactic.  Rather than focus on the debate, redirect attention from the facts.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Agreed. its amazing how someone starts off with a lecture about deductive reasoning and then dismisses out of hand the blatant facts that contradict their point and dismiss emails exchanged by members of the international scientific community because they are inconvenient. This dodge of namecalling and emotional bravado exposes how far this debate has drifted from the realm of science.

---

Agreed. its amazing how someone starts off with a lecture about deductive reasoning and then dismisses out of hand the blatant facts that contradict their point and dismiss emails exchanged by members of the international scientific community because they are inconvenient. This dodge of namecalling and emotional bravado exposes how far this debate has drifted from the realm of science.

An email exchange at one university does not negate any of the science on any level whatsoever. But please lecture me on the pertinent facts.


Here's some honest info regarding your smear campaign:

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy'>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy</a>

---

This boys and girls is a classic liberal tactic. Rather than focus on the debate, redirect attention from the facts.

Do you claim a conspiracy or not? Your initial response implied as much.

---

Do you claim a conspiracy or not? Your initial response implied as much.

 

To answer your question, no I don't claim a "conspiracy".  However, I do claim that it's all about the money.  Just follow the money.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

To answer your question, no I don't claim a "conspiracy".  However, I do claim that it's all about the money.  Just follow the money.

The science stands and speaks for itself.

---

The science stands and speaks for itself.

 

Are you talking about the real science or the manipulated science?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You cant derail a conversation yelling about lizard people and then claim the science stands on its own when u a.) havent demonstrated a personal understanding of said science b.) havent refuted the scientific analysis that i personalyy articulated and c.) llinked a wikipedia page.

---

Are lizard people the result or cause of global warming?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Are lizard people the result or cause of global warming?

Neither, they existed while the Earth was cooling.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Are you talking about the real science or the manipulated science?

So you do believe in a conspiracy? You can't have it both ways.

---

So you do believe in a conspiracy? You can't have it both ways.

 

A conspiracy is a group acting in secret toward a nefarious goal. One laboratory adjusting the data to get the result they expected beforehand is not a conspiracy, especially when they publish the adjustments. Was Ptolemy part of a conspiracy when he added another epicycle to his model?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

A conspiracy is a group acting in secret toward a nefarious goal. One laboratory adjusting the data to get the result they expected beforehand is not a conspiracy, especially when they publish the adjustments. Was Ptolemy part of a conspiracy when he added another epicycle to his model?

 

So are you one of the ones who believes climate scientists are dishonest?  

 

Or do you believe climate scientists are honest, but mistaken?  

---

This thread should not be derailed by semantics and [BLEEP] for tat over CONSPIRACY HONESTY or any of the like.  I don't care if those who espouse AGCC are conspiratorial, dishonest, incorrect, incompetent or any other emotional amplifier that you wish to give.  The point of the matter is that they have linked their doomsday predictions to a variable that has increased exponentially over the last 20 years with no corresponding critical impact on the climate or surface temperatures. 

 

In reality, what disguises itself as a scientific movement has been shamefully exposed as an anecdotal freak show where any ANY event of extreme weather is held up as an example of AGCC with no explanation, no proof, no context, and the masses just eat it up with no mathematical basis to do so. The devotion to the cause has made some so biased that you have a group of climate scientists on an expedition to determine how horrendously melted the ice caps are get stuck in the ice because it was magnitudes thicker than they anticipated, and then the first ice breaker sent to rescue them got stuck because the ice was so thick and it took at second rescue vessel to unclog the mess.  And what do these people do when faced with clear unambiguous evidence that their basic assumption was ridiculous?  They literally go back into their cabins on the way home and calculate how many trees will have to be planted to cover the CARBON FOOTPRINT of the rescue operation.  

 

Bias is part of human nature, its a hard thing to break, but it neither has a place in the scientific community or more importantly, crafting public policy specifically designed to ensure that poor old people on fixed incomes won't have enough fuel to heat themselves during the winter.  The only thing that most who espouse AGCC understand less than the actual data on the table, are the real world tangible effects of the SOLUTIONS that they blindly cling to. 

---

So are you one of the ones who believes climate scientists are dishonest?  

 

Or do you believe climate scientists are honest, but mistaken?  

 

I'd guess most climate scientists believe what they preach and they are willing to stretch the truth a bit in order to save the world.


 

The actual science is far less alarmist than what you read in press releases, but the possibility that there might be a problem keeps the government funding flowing.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This thread should not be derailed by semantics and [BAD WORD REMOVED] for tat over CONSPIRACY HONESTY or any of the like. I don't care if those who espouse AGCC are conspiratorial, dishonest, incorrect, incompetent or any other emotional amplifier that you wish to give. The point of the matter is that they have linked their doomsday predictions to a variable that has increased exponentially over the last 20 years with no corresponding critical impact on the climate or surface temperatures.


In reality, what disguises itself as a scientific movement has been shamefully exposed as an anecdotal freak show where any ANY event of extreme weather is held up as an example of AGCC with no explanation, no proof, no context, and the masses just eat it up with no mathematical basis to do so. The devotion to the cause has made some so biased that you have a group of climate scientists on an expedition to determine how horrendously melted the ice caps are get stuck in the ice because it was magnitudes thicker than they anticipated, and then the first ice breaker sent to rescue them got stuck because the ice was so thick and it took at second rescue vessel to unclog the mess. And what do these people do when faced with clear unambiguous evidence that their basic assumption was ridiculous? They literally go back into their cabins on the way home and calculate how many trees will have to be planted to cover the CARBON FOOTPRINT of the rescue operation.


Bias is part of human nature, its a hard thing to break, but it neither has a place in the scientific community or more importantly, crafting public policy specifically designed to ensure that poor old people on fixed incomes won't have enough fuel to heat themselves during the winter. The only thing that most who espouse AGCC understand less than the actual data on the table, are the real world tangible effects of the SOLUTIONS that they blindly cling to.

Gee, I wonder if you vote republican.

---

I'm sitting here wondering why you would even think to type that frankly...  I'm at a loss.

---