Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]


Fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is such absurdly obvious cherry picking "fixed?" Please provide a chart that includes all the other decades in between and a few more from before and I'll considering it "fixed." Although even then I would question why they're doing "5 to 5" instead of a standard decade. Hell these aren't even decades but 11 years. Weird...

The fact that you take cherry picked non-useful crap like this and call it "evidence" is why I have such a hard time taking you (and the global warming community as a whole) seriously. Every damned time people quote me statistics it's statistically insignificant cherry picking.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't tell me I'm the only person that opened this thread expecting a thread about whether human excrement causes global warming or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument has actually been made by some of the people at Tech Central Station/TCS Daily. They of course happen to get funding from Exxon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, all the anti-global warming research is financed by oil companies and all the pro-global warming research is financed by governments. GG bias free science!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
my favorite thing about the global warming crisis is that, in 10 years, we'll likely know for sure one way or the other; the political debate will have no effect on the veracity of the claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in 10 years the results will be measured, and decisions made on short term results that are still meaningless to geological time frames. Winners of the political game will be decided based on a coin flip, with all of the game prep done by both sides rendered moot.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adios I don't have time to review everything now (I shouldn't even be making this post) but scanning that website I saw this:

Interestingly, starting about two decades ago (1988), the total increase of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has abruptly stopped, in spite of increased burning of fossil fuels.

....

This might account for the very recent net cessation of emission of green house gases into the atmosphere starting about 1988, in spite of increasing generation of anthropomorphically-sourced industrial-based green house gases.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...r_radia_1.html

which has nothing to do with reality:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

will review more later.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting that you would:
1. Find a different article by a different author rather than address the one posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I was short on time and just scanning the website and not really reading the articles. But to address the very same link adios posted well.... they go against NOAA, WHOI, NASA, AGU, USGS's, NAS, and the IPCC conclusions about the hockey stick and the extent of the little ice age. So I don't think that site has a lot of credibility. But I will read the article a little more carefully later. Adios deserves that much respect from me. At the time I just spotted some obvious errors and had to point them out.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Refute a statement about total global greenhouse gas emissions with information about CO2 emissions only.

[/ QUOTE ]
From the EPA


Fixed. It's still a big big big mistake on their behalf.

All the info you need is here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...oryreport.html

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is such absurdly obvious cherry picking "fixed?" Please provide a chart that includes all the other decades in between and a few more from before and I'll considering it "fixed." Although even then I would question why they're doing "5 to 5" instead of a standard decade. Hell these aren't even decades but 11 years. Weird...

The fact that you take cherry picked non-useful crap like this and call it "evidence" is why I have such a hard time taking you (and the global warming community as a whole) seriously. Every damned time people quote me statistics it's statistically insignificant cherry picking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That table is from the American Meteorological Society. The raw data is in the links of the image I provided. Feel free to make your own graphs just make sure they are at the same points of the oscillation. If you can prove this paper was cherry picking then you should be able to get your name in some scientific journal.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]


Fixed. It's still a big big big mistake on their behalf.

All the info you need is here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...oryreport.html

[/ QUOTE ]

heh.... wrong graph:



Now it's fixed. The above is from Wikipedia via NOAA. CFC-11 is the only one that really decreased and it's impact is a small fraction of CO2 or methane.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is such absurdly obvious cherry picking "fixed?" Please provide a chart that includes all the other decades in between and a few more from before and I'll considering it "fixed." Although even then I would question why they're doing "5 to 5" instead of a standard decade. Hell these aren't even decades but 11 years. Weird...

The fact that you take cherry picked non-useful crap like this and call it "evidence" is why I have such a hard time taking you (and the global warming community as a whole) seriously. Every damned time people quote me statistics it's statistically insignificant cherry picking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That table is from the American Meteorological Society. The raw data is in the links of the image I provided. Feel free to make your own graphs just make sure they are at the same points of the oscillation. If you can prove this paper was cherry picking then you should be able to get your name in some scientific journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one trying to prove anything! You are! This is like the Christian asking the agnostic or atheist for proof that God doesn't exist. I have no interest in trying to prove to you that global warming does or does not exist because I don't know. I assume that you are trying to convince people of the "truth" of global warming, which is why I'm telling you that your point is flawed and unconvincing. If you don't care, why are you even bothering?

It may or may not actually be cherry picked. I don't know, I'm just saying it sure looks that way to anyone actually thinks about the things they're told rather than sheepishly accepting them. The fact is that presenting data in this fashion is crappy propaganda, even if the point the data is trying to make is completely true, and I don't give a damn who it was that made it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ][list] All the info you need is here:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emi...oryreport.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, with our government's track record, one should clearly believe everything they say.

[oe39]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my favorite thing about the global warming crisis is that, in 10 years, we'll likely know for sure one way or the other; the political debate will have no effect on the veracity of the claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in 10 years the results will be measured, and decisions made on short term results that are still meaningless to geological time frames. Winners of the political game will be decided based on a coin flip, with all of the game prep done by both sides rendered moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe, though, if we're lucky, we can convince everyone that the "blue sky theory" has some strong experimental support.

you are seriously suggesting in 10 years if temperatures continue to climb and we have even better evidence that co2 levels lead temperature that this is "luck"?

i agree that funding pressures tend towards pushing environmentalists towards alarmism. i also recognize that the global warming hypothesis is really three separate hypotheses:

1. earth gettin' warmer
2. emissions cause warmer earth
3. warming that we are seeing is actually due to (2)

sweeping any sort of potential result under the rug with the buzzphrase "geological time frames" is misleading and does your argument a disservice. do you believe all geological change occurs on geological time scales, or just that sample sizes are small to the point of being meaningless in human time scales?

scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result. i think in 10-20 years, global warming will have gone the way of either the heliocentric or the geocentric theory. however, the geocentric theory does still have supporters (and many of them aren't buying into global warming either).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree that funding pressures tend towards pushing environmentalists towards alarmism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually people like Hansen and other "doom sayers" are getting their funding cut by the Bush administration.