Proved: There is no climate crisis

[fmccap]

i fixed the spelling and even added an adjective for you.

i still haven't found the caps key yet though so beware!

when ever you little boys want to act like grown ups and come up with tsome facts, and not some old dude funded by exxon or the like and perhaps open your eyes, not to fox news only, put up something here that is accurate, and based in science let me know.

What about the records from before 1850 I provided you with? Look pretty normal to me, what's your SPIN on them?

 

LINK to post 603

Edited February 18, 2009 by fmccap

[NickF1011]

Steps of the scientific method

 

1. Name the problem or question

 

2. Form a hypothesis

 

3. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment or study (with proper controls) WE ARE HERE.

 

4. Check and interpret results

 

5. Report results to the scientific community for peer review

 

6. Explain descrepancy

 

7. Form Conclusion THE MMGW CROWD HAVE JUMPED TO HERE.

 

That's the part that bothers me about all of this. We could very well be jumping to dangerous conclusions. I guess this kiddie just doesn't understand science. :rolleyes:

[DUCKRACER]

When ever all over you little kiddies can grow up and learn what science is, and how to use it please feel free to post something, until then lets try and cut out the name calling, or inaccurate quoting, putting words in peoples mouths, or thinking everyone who cares for the environment is an Al Gore fan (although i suspect you guys are just mad the george W got appointed instead and screw up the economy for all of us) and come up with some hard facts, and studies that are replicable in order to prove there is no climate crisis or alteration by man.

 

First, the noaa says nothing the CAUSE of the warming. They just report the information.

 

OK Look at the BBC article I provided.

 

On the right hand side you will see the topic "Latest Science"

 

"Changes Amplify arctic warming". This again does not deal with the Cause.

 

"This year coolest since 2000" The world in 2008 has been cooler than anytime since the beginning of the century 2000.

 

Then read "Solar Wind blows at 50 year low" You will see on the right side of the page "SEE ALSO" Click on Sun and Global Warming: A cosmic Connection" If you click on that, you will see where Dr. Svensmark opines that "I think that the sun is the major driver of climate". Further down you will see "FEELING THE HEAT" where you can see three articles on how the sun could be causing climate change.

 

Clearly there is not a consensus among scientist that GW is man-made. A highly edcuated man like you must see that, right?

 

Lastly, last night I tried a scientific experiment that all reading this might try. I took a glass and filled it half way with tap water. I then put in about three ice cubes, so that they floated like icebergs without touching the bottom of the glass. I measured the water level by alligning it with a post it. I let it set at room temprature untill all of the ice melted. I then looked at the post-it and the water level did not change.

[stephenhawkings]

Steps of the scientific method

 

1. Name the problem or question

 

2. Form a hypothesis

 

3. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment or study (with proper controls) WE ARE HERE.

 

4. Check and interpret results

 

5. Report results to the scientific community for peer review

 

6. Explain descrepancy

 

7. Form Conclusion THE MMGW CROWD HAVE JUMPED TO HERE.

1. is man affecting the global environment and warming iet? perhaps maybe we should explore further.

2. form a hypothesis. man is effecting the global env.

3 test my hypothesis by doing an experiment or study (with proper controls) well the former is possible, but probably not on the scale that mankind is used to working with, and especially since we dont have an earth twin to experiment with and another to control, so we have to move on to study. we can study how has the environment changed since mankind has come to prominence in numbers and effects on the globe, or Gaia for our more well read readers. there has been numerous studies, granted studies are not all inclusive, or exclusive and no definite results can be absolutely reached as that is our problem with not having two twin planets to experiment with. so we have to rely on studies, once again in case you missed it our planet system doesn't have duplicates that allow us to try experiments to see what our effects do, and what the absence of our activities do. however we can look at things that happened before mankind's onslaught on the globe. We can look at ice cores in Antarctica and compare how the layers of snow/ice accumulation have changed in chemical make up over the many thousands of years that they have been piling up, we can look at historical records where humans have taken temperature readings, or even measure the mercury levels in the fish we catch and eat, hopefullt not our children or women of childbearing age. we can than move on to the next step. sorry for those who like to cite more refeernces hear as i have a job to go and do and can't waste all my time educateing the uninformed masses.

4 check and interpret results. wel there is mercury in fish, check, how did it get there well we i bet there is all kinds of mercury from coal power plants, if you really need me to find that info for you let me know and i'll google it for you. the 100 foot house boat idol person i believe already illustrated in movie like fashion the Antarctic ice cores, but i'll rehash it, there is more CO2 in the air, and CO2 has some peculiar properties, almost green house like, and since the levels of CO2 are on the rise, hence the greenhouse effect is also on the rise. check.

5 report the results to the scientific community. i am pretty sure there is at least on article cited in this thread, but let me see, http://www.physorg.com/news2844.html try that its only one but i think there where another 120,000 if that one wasn't convincing enough, granted its an article about a study, if you need me to find the actual study i will tomorrow when i am at school/lab.

6 explain discrepancies. well lets see if we take away special interests like the exxon mobile, and other tainted sources of funding, and Dr. Fox like corrupted peoples that have no actual study just a vested financial interest we haven't much, ok FOX news, but isn't that entertainment now days anyways?

7 form conclusion.

well man has had an effect on the environment and to wha textent we don't whooly know as the globe is rather large and we dont have the ability to experiment with a control, but what little we hqave loked at says we are affecting Gaia, or mother nature, hell my kids can't eat the fish from lake Erie, and i would hate to think what would happen if i fell into the rouge river and didn't shower within the hour, let alone love canal in NY. but far be it for me to try and convince the mindless, i am just waiting for the publish study to contradict the proMMGW side.

 

bring it on you have your hypothesis wheres the studies and findings?

[TomServo92]

i fixed the spelling and even added an adjective for you.

i still haven't found the caps key yet though so beware!

when ever you little boys want to act like grown ups and come up with tsome facts, and not some old dude funded by exxon or the like and perhaps open your eyes, not to fox news only, put up something here that is accurate, and based in science let me know.

 

Very mature. :rolleyes:

 

You get your little feelings hurt because I don't quote you word for word and you respond with juvenile insults. If anyone is a little boy here, it's YOU.

 

I'm done wasting my time with you.

Edited February 21, 2009 by TomServo92

[RangerM]

.... i am just waiting for the publish study to contradict the proMMGW side.

 

bring it on you have your hypothesis wheres the studies and findings?

 

Paper Number 1 disputing the data upon which MMGW is based.

 

Here is a paper outlining the arguments against the CO2 = Warming.

 

Here is a link to several peer-reviewed papers, take your pick.

 

....if you need me to find the actual study i will tomorrow when i am at school/lab....

When you finish your fun in the lab at school, you can find out these things for yourself.

 

I work in the real world (AND for profit) in environmental consulting.

Edited February 18, 2009 by RangerM

[DUCKRACER]

Paper Number 1 disputing the data upon which MMGW is based.

 

Here is a paper outlining the arguments against the CO2 = Warming.

 

Here is a link to several peer-reviewed papers, take your pick.

 

 

When you finish your fun in the lab at school, you can find out these things for yourself.

 

I work in the real world (AND for profit) in environmental consulting.

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks, RangerM.

[Trimdingman]

It was the global warming people who came up with the idea of global warming. I am waiting to see some proof. They are the ones who have to prove it. The proof has to be very convincing. I am not even interested in this topic, as I think that it is total baloney, just like religion. The trouble is that I still have to pay for anything that these con artists are able to put over on the morons in this country. That is my position. I don't care if you want to pray to the green cheese god on the moon just as long as I am left out of the equation.

[NickF1011]

It was the global warming people who came up with the idea of global warming. I am waiting to see some proof. They are the ones who have to prove it. The proof has to be very convincing. I am not even interested in this topic, as I think that it is total baloney, just like religion. The trouble is that I still have to pay for anything that these con artists are able to put over on the morons in this country. That is my position. I don't care if you want to pray to the green cheese god on the moon just as long as I am left out of the equation.

 

Hey! No need to bring cheese into this discussion! Cheese never hurt nobody!!

[fmccap]

It was the global warming people who came up with the idea of global warming. I am waiting to see some proof. They are the ones who have to prove it. The proof has to be very convincing. I am not even interested in this topic, as I think that it is total baloney, just like religion. The trouble is that I still have to pay for anything that these con artists are able to put over on the morons in this country. That is my position. I don't care if you want to pray to the green cheese god on the moon just as long as I am left out of the equation.

He's not from the moon, he's from Venus. Get it straight.

[stephenhawkings]

It was the global warming people who came up with the idea of global warming. I am waiting to see some proof. They are the ones who have to prove it. The proof has to be very convincing. I am not even interested in this topic, as I think that it is total baloney, just like religion. The trouble is that I still have to pay for anything that these con artists are able to put over on the morons in this country. That is my position. I don't care if you want to pray to the green cheese god on the moon just as long as I am left out of the equation.

"It was the global warming people who came up with the idea of global warming." really how did you figure that out?

"I am not even interested in this topic" some how i doubt that

 

if i was a praying type i would do it for you.

[stephenhawkings]

Paper Number 1 disputing the data upon which MMGW is based.

 

Here is a paper outlining the arguments against the CO2 = Warming.

 

Here is a link to several peer-reviewed papers, take your pick.

 

 

When you finish your fun in the lab at school, you can find out these things for yourself.

 

I work in the real world (AND for profit) in environmental consulting.

wow something finally that might have some merit, i guess you guys aren't completey brain dead.

after i spent eight hours at school, lab real world and then ten at work i'll try and read it, what i glanced over had some nice fancy words, i just hope their not talking about a parking lot like the initial glance lead me to believe.

[RangerM]

wow something finally that might have some merit, i guess you guys aren't completey brain dead.

 

after i spent eight hours at school, lab real world and then ten at work i'll try and read it, what i glanced over had some nice fancy words,....

 

I enjoy reading the college-boy attitude because I was once there myself.

 

But sooner or later you'll have to ditch the haughtiness. You'll find yourself more successful in life.

 

.....i just hope their not talking about a parking lot like the initial glance lead me to believe.

 

Read first, then comment. (NOTE: That's how NOT to be haughty, just so you know)

Edited February 19, 2009 by RangerM

[stephenhawkings]

I enjoy reading the college-boy attitude because I was once there myself.

 

But sooner or later you'll have to ditch the haughtiness. You'll find yourself more successful in life.

 

 

 

Read first, then comment. (NOTE: That's how NOT to be haughty, just so you know)

college boy i bet, working on my fourth degree, young at heart i am. as for sucess i am a rich man and enjoy my long days serving those interests i consider worthwhile, it is a shame more can't claim the same.

 

i read a bit more after the post, and it does seam to be a bit more word than scientific, but as mu lunch break is short i'll have to save a critic of it for tomorrow.

i bet if your an ENV consultant, and educated in the sciences you have read it and see something lacking in it, but maybe the blinders, or your paradigm is to encompassing.

Edited February 19, 2009 by stephenhawkings

[30 OTT 6]

This thread hasn't proven a damn thing.

[NickF1011]

This thread hasn't proven a damn thing.

 

Sure it has. It has proven that stubborn people's minds can never be changed.

[stephenhawkings]

well said ,or typed

[NickF1011]

well said ,or typed

 

So can I FINALLY close this thread?? I'm tired of seeing it every day. :lol:

[suv_guy_19]

OTTAWA–Canada and the United States appear set to take an initial step towards a North American climate-change treaty Thursday during President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa.

 

Sources from both countries say they expect Harper and the president to announce an agreement that would serve as a building block towards a continental cap-and-trade system.

 

One American official said the leaders are expected to take a modest first step Thursday by announcing a clean-technology deal that would boost the practice of carbon capture and storage.

 

PM, Obama expected to unveil environment deal - Toronto Star

[NickF1011]

Cap-and-trade has to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Believer in global warming or not, it's a bad idea.

[suv_guy_19]

Cap-and-trade has to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Believer in global warming or not, it's a bad idea.

 

 

I couldn't agree more...allowing the market to set the price of carbon could drive the price of things up so high....

[NickF1011]

I couldn't agree more...allowing the market to set the price of carbon could drive the price of things up so high....

 

The fact that it even creates a market for carbon is stupid. The whole concept is just asking for corruption.

Edited February 19, 2009 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

college boy i bet, working on my fourth degree, young at heart i am. as for sucess i am a rich man and enjoy my long days serving those interests i consider worthwhile, it is a shame more can't claim the same.

 

i read a bit more after the post, and it does seam to be a bit more word than scientific, but as mu lunch break is short i'll have to save a critic of it for tomorrow.

i bet if your an ENV consultant, and educated in the sciences you have read it and see something lacking in it, but maybe the blinders, or your paradigm is to encompassing.

 

Yes, I am educated. Chemical Engineering, specifically. But while education may provide knowledge, wisdom comes from experience. Seventeen years experience with environmental engineering (including emissions modelling) have taught me a few things in that time.

 

One, no scientific paper is without holes or weak points, so I concede your point about "something lacking in it". It's a question of how significant those descrepancies are, relative to the conclusion. (the "eye of the beholder" if you will)

 

Two, while it may have some weaknesses, the result is the same; there is more to be learned than we know at this time. Hence, my argument that we are still at number 3 in the list above, and that is all I have ever said.

 

IMO, based on my experience with the technology involved, there needs to be a far greater level of certainty (than currently attained) before we commit to the upheaval required to fix it. (that's the next question)

Edited February 19, 2009 by RangerM

[RangerM]

This thread hasn't proven a damn thing.

 

Sure it has. It's proven that the debate is NOT over (among the scientific community), as Al Gore and his followers claim.

[Trimdingman]

PM, Obama expected to unveil environment deal - Toronto Star

 

Stephen Harper is the PM of Canada. I know that he hates the idea of carbon tax, but to say so would be the end of his government. Obama is dragging him kicking and screaming towards his socialist agenda. He can extort him with threats to the Canadian auto industry, and more border "security". Why doesn't the US just take over Canada and get it over with? Canadians voted for right-of-centre Conservatism in the recent election. In this environment, it can't happen.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Trimdingman