The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 579/600)
E.Furgal OCT 30, 02:15 AM

quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:


It is Not possible for the general public to know where the
lines between the science and politics are not the same.
Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians,
we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount
of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.

When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough,
they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until
they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding
none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is
released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position
and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another
on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon
industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and
misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data
it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays
for.

If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast
divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance
that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.



So true, if these doing the science want the grants to keep coming to stay employed and/or in business they will give the results the one footing the bills want..
This is no different than John Force or any other race car driver that stumps for those footing the bills..
Those that make money off this fraud, somehow want others to think, the ice age and ice retracting only would go so far then stop..
This would be like say'n a block of ice in a bowl will only melt so far and stop..

I'm shocked they haven't tried removing any data that there was an ice age. all we are seeing is the part of the retracting of the ice age while we are living..
They always leave out the effects of the earth crust movement over time 1-2" a year.. how much closer to one pole than the other is the usa than it was 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago?
how much is the earth wobble while spinning around ? Are the poles in the same spot in our orbit and spin around the sun or does this change over time?and how our perfectly repeated is our orbit around the sun,? is the sun heat output always linear ?
The last 2 decades has shown that science has been wrong about space, They guess at measurements with no way to prove the earth spins like a top perfectly the same everytime.. no way to prove if the earth is the same distance from the sun everytime, if the suns energy output is level or between the temp guesses they come up with..

like everything follow the money..

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 10-30-2016).]

newf OCT 30, 04:51 AM

quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:


Whom is granting the funds for the science gets the results they are looking for.. not what science results are..
And study can be made to get the outcome you are after.. if you opps forgot parts of the facts, of the study..



I know people want to believe that it's some massive conspiracy but the science is peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.
newf OCT 30, 04:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:

like everything follow the money..




Yup it's those darn super rich researchers and scientists not big oil.
newf OCT 30, 05:11 AM

quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:


It is Not possible for the general public to know where the
lines between the science and politics are not the same.
Until the scientist separate themselves from the politicians,
we comon folks can not trust the data because of the amount
of potential manipulation being done to shape public opinion.

When the scientist quit dipping from the Government trough,
they will "call BS" when politicians misrepresent the data. Until
they are no longer dependent on Government grants/funding
none of them can be trusted to protect the accuracy of what is
released to the public instead of protecting their reputation, position
and income. Government agencies do not compete against one another
on the science. But if these same scientist where dependent upon
industries, competing industries would fund the exposure of false and
misleading claims of their competitors. The government gets the data
it pays for, it vets the data it pays for and it publishes the results it pays
for.

If we can not separate the science from the Government we could atleast
divide the money up and fund both lines of research to create a balance
that acts as a filter to cleanse the agendas from the data.



I'm sorry but if that's the case you can not trust any data whatsoever and you would be unable to form an informed opinion regarding Climate Change of any kind.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 10-30-2016).]

E.Furgal OCT 30, 06:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by newf:


I know people want to believe that it's some massive conspiracy but the science is peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.



fact is the part that crushes this fraud
before the industrial age.. much of north America was a jungle.... That requires high temps than now..

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 10-30-2016).]

E.Furgal OCT 30, 06:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by newf:


Yup it's those darn super rich researchers and scientists not big oil.



YOU are so silly..
put up or shut up..
walk or ride a pedal bike and stop heating your home..

big evil big oil. yet you use it daily..
either put up or shut your pic hole. hypocrite
rinselberg OCT 30, 10:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:
fact is the part that crushes this fraud
before the industrial age.. much of north America was a jungle.... That requires high temps than now..


Much of North America was a jungle... when? Was it 1000 years before the Industrial Age? No. There is enough historical and archaeological evidence to rule that out. No such jungle covering most of North America 1000 years ago. What about 10,000 years ago? No. The fossil evidence and the archaeological evidence is clear. No such jungle, even 10,000 years ago.

The farther backwards in time before the present, or before the Industrial Age, the less relevant that observation about a jungle. Why less relevant? Consider the time scale that is relevant to people who are concerned about man-made global warming. Is it 10,000 years into the future? I don't think so. If it somehow became known to science that the planet--for whatever reason(s)--cannot possibly sustain human life any farther into the future than 10,000 years, would you expect the human race to collectively shrug its shoulders and say "What's the point of going on with human life any longer. We haven't got a future beyond the next 10,000 years?" I think not.

What if the expectation for any kind of human survival was only for the next 1000 years? Would that make any difference. I don't see it. I think the human race (collectively) would want to keep on living for as long as possible and hope that something would change before that 1000 year deadline. Maybe science (collectively) would change its findings about "Doomsday in 1000 years". Maybe in another 100 or 200 years there would be technological advancements beyond the present human capabilities that would render the "Doomsday in 1000 years" expectations a moot point.

So the concern about man-made global warming extends from the present, to somewhere between just 200 or 300 years from now (on the low end), to about 1000 years from now--at most. What lies in store for humanity beyond 1000 years from now is a moot point, in terms of the concerns about man-made global warming.

I think most climate researchers hold that there is no known reason to expect the earth's climate to change much during the next 1000 years, provided that the CO2 component of the atmosphere is stabilized at about 350 ppm. Is the earth's orbit around the sun going to change in any significant way during the next 1000 years? The earth's diurnal axis of rotation? The moon's orbit around the earth? Would the processes of plate tectonics or "continental drift" change the configuration of the earth's continents in any significant way during the next 1000 years? Will the earth be receiving significantly more or less solar energy as the next 1000 years go by? The climate researchers that I have been reading about are saying "No" on all of these counts.

So that's why the concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere, and the human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere are relevant, and why this prehistoric jungle that E.Furgal just referenced--a climate interval that ended considerably more than 10,000 years ago--has no practical relevance to the concerns about man-made global warming.

I just referenced the CO2 "target" of 350 ppm. That will take some doing. It's mostly above 400 ppm. It crossed the 400 ppm threshold just a few years ago.

i could try to be more exacting about all this, by resorting to some new online searches to refresh my memory. When (exactly) was the 400 ppm CO2 threshold exceeded? How many tens of thousands or millions of years have passed since most of North American was a jungle? But I've already made my argument. Any more exactness would be overkill. I have "bounded" the problem, as the "math heads" (not to be confused with the meth heads) are prone to saying.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-30-2016).]

jmclemore OCT 30, 10:49 AM

quote
Originally posted by newf:


..... peer reviewed and the data is out there for people to poke holes in. Sorry if some can't accept it but it doesn't change the facts.



Peer reviewed means tied to someoneelses credibility and reputation. Sorry, but if your credibility and reputation all hang on the science you support, you will protect it at all cost. The difference between the scientist who for and against this "science" is who their pay checks come from.

Both deliver what they are paid to. And anyone who thinks a scientist from either side is more honest than the other, would likely buy a used car from dealer because they thought the name christain motors meant honesty and righteousness.
rinselberg OCT 30, 11:25 AM
"The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"

The New York Times of July 28, 2012 carried (on its Opinion Pages) a column from Richard A. Muller, and it started with this:

quote
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.


That's the first four paragraphs.

A man-made global warming skeptic, converted to a "believer", after his own involvement in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project or BEST.

Here's something more about BEST. It was not directly funded by the U.S. government or any other government. It was a privately funded study. Part of the funding came from the Koch Brothers, who were not known to be enthusiastic about the idea of man-made global warming. How much of the funding from the Koch Brothers? That I don't know (at least without further research), but it was at least enough to connect the name "Koch Brothers" with BEST.

Richard Muller was involved in BEST. The results changed his mindset about man-made global warming. Before his involvement with BEST, Muller was skeptical about man-made global warming. After his involvement, a skeptic no more.

Judith Curry, another climate researcher, was also involved in BEST. She was skeptical about man-made global warming before BEST, and to the best of my knowledge, remains skeptical to this very day.

There's never been complete agreement among the world's top tier climate researchers, but I have to go with the majority, and based on my readings (and viewings), I think the clear majority is represented by Richard Muller; not Judith Curry.

I don't think that these views that climate researchers are nothing more than puppets whose strings are being pulled by their paymasters (E.Furgal; jmclemore; et al) square up with the story of Richard Muller and his BEST conversion.

Was Richard Muller the only one?

I kind of doubt that.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-30-2016).]

newf OCT 30, 05:41 PM

quote
Originally posted by E.Furgal:


fact is the part that crushes this fraud
before the industrial age.. much of north America was a jungle.... That requires high temps than now..




Oh my.