GlobalWarming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap?

[AZXD]

A very interesting analysis of the report presented to the UN with supportive data that shows another flawed presentation of facts that further an agenda that will ultimately control the people into a compact socialized, authoritarian model of harmony ... The Goracle surely shifted his investments and adjusted his portfolio when this was released..

GlobalWarming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap?

With the prospect of climate change legislation that could cost American families up to $4,500
per year by 2015, and talk of using technology to sequester carbon through well drilling,
which Michael Economides estimates could cost up to $7.2 trillion – or 60 times the current costs
of drilling (Energy Tribune, June 2007) – it is ever more critical to determine whether we do in fact
have a problem with carbon dioxide.

Despite the 90 percent certainty that man is behind recent global warming trends, the word
“uncertainty” appears 494 times in the recent “Summary for Policymakers,” produced by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Though the actual research scientists generally did a commendable job, the more alarmist
interpretation was provided by a smaller cadre of agenda-driven scientists and statesmen. Then
the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further.

So what is the real story?
The report’s final summaries had several failings. First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon
dioxide rise of 36 percent, when direct measurements(1) suggest the change is closer to 15
percent. Their models assume an annual increase of 1 percent, although over the last 50 years
the long-term annual average consistently has been less than half that, 0.43 percent. Their
models treat the oceans as distilled water when in reality they are an infinite buffer for
atmospheric CO2. Burning all the earth’s fossil fuels would amount to no more than a 20 percent
increase. It could never double(2). In any event, ice cores tell us carbon dioxide lags, not leads,
the temperatures by as much as 800 years.

The IPCC acknowledges no problems with the global data bases, stating urbanization has a
negligible effect on global changes, and ignoring dozens of peer review papers that show urban
contamination is significant (in diverse areas including China, central Europe, and even Barrow,
Alaska). During the 20th century, the population of the world increased four-fold, from 1.5 billion
to 6 billion. More and more areas are urbanized. Airports, once rural, find cities growing around
them.

The report ignores the fact that total global stations decreased by 66 percent after 1990, and
there was a ten-fold increase in months with no reported data from the remaining stations, mainly
in the former Soviet Union and Africa. They also ignore the issue that the majority of world
stations may not meet World Meteorological Organization standards for siting instruments, a
problem that has also been widely documented in peer review journals. They ignore the halfdozen
peer review papers suggesting that these problems could well account for 50 percent or
more of the warming shown for the world data bases.
The National Climatic Data Center has a network of 1,221 stations in the U.S. that is more stable
and continuous than the rest of the world’s. Those stations adjust for urbanization and thus are
likelier to produce data that more accurately represents the climate change picture. Data from
those stations show changes that are cyclical in nature with a smaller rise over time, some manmade

and some natural.

Read the rest

[Cannibul]

Well the one thing I did not see in your article is that CO2 actually follows temperature increase. CO2 doesn't lead temperature increase.

So attempting to control temperature increase by controlling CO2 is pointless.

[Etta Place]

More questionable science from the deniers.

But my attempt to maintain a skeptical stance melted away faster than a Greenland glacier when I took a closer look at the source of Greenie Watch's contrarian take, a Web site called ICECAP run by a retired meteorologist named Joseph D'Aleo.

ICECAP is an acronym for International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, and it is as festering a hotbed for notorious climate change denialists as I have seen outside of JunkScience. On its home page, ICECAP prominently features articles by Christopher Monckton and D'Aleo, both of whom are closely associated with the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). SPPI, in turn, is an offshoot of the right-wing Frontiers of Freedom think tank. According to Wikipedia, SPPI was formerly named the Center for Science and Public Policy and was originally created with the help of a $100,000 donation from ExxonMobil.

It's amazing, really. Pick a random datapoint of climate skepticism floating through the infosphere, and you can almost invariably connect the dots back to Exxon.

Bye-bye, Antarctica? - How the World Works - Salon.com

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

More questionable science from the deniers.





Bye-bye, Antarctica? - How the World Works - Salon.com

If you repeat it often and loudly enough you make it true, huh?

Global warming is man made and real.
Global warming is man made and real.
Global warming is man made and real.

Sorry, still doesn't get it for me. In order for someone to be called a "denier" you must first prove conclusively that there is a man made problem here, no?

Too many disagree for me to take it as gospel. Whatever gets you tghrough the angry day though.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

If you repeat it often and loudly enough you make it true, huh?

Global warming is man made and real.
Global warming is man made and real.
Global warming is man made and real.

Sorry, still doesn't get it for me. In order for someone to be called a "denier" you must first prove conclusively that there is a man made problem here, no?

Too many disagree for me to take it as gospel. Whatever gets you tghrough the angry day though.

You and the deniers can deny all you want. When both presidential candidates in this election believe global warming is real and believe man is partly responsible, you are going to see efforts made to reduce our carbon use. It is happening, whether you like it or not.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

You and the deniers can deny all you want. When both presidential candidates in this election believe global warming is real and believe man is partly responsible, you are going to see efforts made to reduce our carbon use. It is happening, whether you like it or not.

Unlike some I'm not denying anything Etta. I'm looking for more conclusive proof is all. My mind is not made up on the issue. If you want to carve your views in stone and build walls around them, have at it. I'll listen to all Scientists on the issue, not just the ones that fit my preconceived notions.

[AZXD]

The only deniers I seem to see are those who are blind to the possibility that alternatives exist, data can be interpreted many ways, and just because one scientist or even a group states a theory is fact ... Doesn't make it fact.

For your viewing pleasure, I give you Piltdown man.
Once stated as fact to the point the Smithsonian Institute developed an entire family around what was eventually determined to be Theoretical BS not unlike what GW may be proven to be.

Piltdown Man
archaeology - famous hoax



The 'discovery' of Piltdown Man was a famous hoax in the history of the science of archaeology. Following on from the unearthing of the fragmented skull remains in Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England, between 1908-1912 of what had apparently been a type of primitive hominid species increasingly ambitious claims of the finding of a missing link fossil relevant to understanding human evolution were made - partly through the intervention of the popular press.

Although the fossil remains presented as being discovered in Piltdown Quarry subsequently seemed to display features that did not fit in with other paleontological discoveries of hominid fossil remains it was only some forty years later that 'Piltdown Man' was proven to be a fraud.

The excavations of 1912 were undertaken by Charles Dawson and the 'early hominid' type he discovered was given the scientific name Eoanthropus Dawsoni before many months had passed. The remains seemed to combine a skull capable of housing a large brain with a jaw structure that was judged to be fairly primitive.
Other significant skull remains were also reported as being discovered in 1915 bring the total of the 'Eoanthropus' finds made at Piltdown Quarry to two skulls, a canine tooth, a mandible (lower jaw), together with a tool carved from an elephant tusk.

At this time the whole subject of Human Evolution and the interpretation of fossil remains was relatively new and undeniably controversial.
Darwin's 'Origin of Species' had been published in 1859, his 'Descent of Man' followed in 1871. Very limited early discoveries of Hominid type fossils had been made of what became known as Neanderthal Man (1856), Cro Magnon Man (1869), Java Man (1890), Peking Man (a molar tooth 1903), and Heidelberg Man (1907).
Society as a whole, however, was a long way from reaching a consensus on the relevance of theological versus scientific claims about the origins of humanity. The scant quantity of hominid type fossils available to paleontology were also hard to classify and problematic to give date of origin to.

The Piltdown discoveries were initially dismissed by some scientists as they held that the skull fragments were self evidently from a different species than the jaw fragments but an acceptance of the claims of 'Piltdown Man' to be seen as something of a missing link in human evolution did take hold of the popular imagination.

Other paleontological discoveries continued to be made, however, such as Australopithecus (1924), and a Peking Man skull (1929), that bore features inconsistent with the claims being made for the Piltdown discoveries. Furthermore a Fluorine Content Test had become accepted as being able to yield a reliable date for such discovered remains. When a Fluorine test was conducted in 1949 on the Piltdown remains the results indicated a relatively recent origin. Geologists began to cast doubt on the accepted age of the gravel deposits in the Piltdown Quarry in which the 'finds' were supposed to have been made.

The case for Piltdown Man had been increasingly dismissed by academic paleontology. Some authorities declared the Piltdown remains to be a mixture drawn from hominid and other sources, scientific papers and textbooks tended to downplay or actually omit reference to Piltdown Man.

Finally, in 1953, Piltdown Man was established as being a deliberate hoax, this came about during an international conference of paleontologists in London where a range of fossil remains were on display and where the suspicions of some of the delegates were aroused by the pattern of wear evident on the Piltdown teeth. Microscopic examination showed evidence of deliberate filing such that the molar teeth would seem to be a close and natural match for the skulls. This and other anomalies resulted in Piltdown Man being declared to be a deliberate hoax. There was uncertainty, however, as to who had decided to pull off the fraud.

In the aftermath of the final discrediting of the Piltdown claims extensive scientific tests established that the Piltdown skulls were of Medieval origin and were perhaps 620 years old, the jawbone, itself perhaps 500 years old, probably came from an Orangutan, and the canine tooth was a genuine, chimpanzee, fossil dating from the Pleistocene Age.

Evidence of deliberate staining with an iron solution to give an appearance of age to the bones was also detected.

More sources- piltdown man - Google Search

The science of our planet is so little understood that we do not even know the variables that are at play ... Yet we have scientists create incomplete models and profess the results as fact, and people want to spend vast amounts of money based on computer models that rely on incomplete data sets.

OK, I get it
Denial of the possibility a theory might be wrong.
Then again .. How are you going to make a profit, if you don't scare people into believing the theory, and getting government subsidies to back growth the market will not support on its own.
Denial of alternative possibilities ... Makes money. I get it!!

[Etta Place]

This whole denier mindset on this website is really sad. I see the outcome of doing nothing about greenhouse gasses as worse than doing something - even if the warnings are found later to be hasty or exaggerated.

You do realize that major U.S. companies like DuPont and General Electric, Alcoa and Caterpiller, have called on the government to do something about greenhouse gasses? Are they pawns of the environmental movement? I hardly think so.

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This whole denier mindset on this website is really sad. I see the outcome of doing nothing about greenhouse gasses as worse than doing something - even if the warnings are found later to be hasty or exaggerated.

You do realize that major U.S. companies like DuPont and General Electric, Alcoa and Caterpiller, have called on the government to do something about greenhouse gasses? Are they pawns of the environmental movement? I hardly think so.

Look at the products that they make and you'll find the reasons for their support. As always, follow the money and you'll find the answers.

Shall I begin calling you a Natural Global Warming denier? The "denier" label makes as much sense either way you use it.

[AZXD]

No they are most likely investors.

Why don't you address this post - Gore Speech: A Generational Challenge to Repower America

Reply in the thread it is in, so we don't get all confused.
It is an analysis of data from NASA and I used it to ... as you say ... deny.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

This whole denier mindset on this website is really sad. I see the outcome of doing nothing about greenhouse gasses as worse than doing something - even if the warnings are found later to be hasty or exaggerated.

You do realize that major U.S. companies like DuPont and General Electric, Alcoa and Caterpiller, have called on the government to do something about greenhouse gasses? Are they pawns of the environmental movement? I hardly think so.