A bit of global warming

[Kasuha]

So you have nothing to offer than the same speech again. Opinions from one guy with ties to the oil industry (which I have shown you evidence for).

Well, I don't really want to discuss which ties Pachauri or many other guys around IPCC have because I don't really think that could be called science.

Over many years I am following the AGW hysteria I have changed my mind many times. At first I was scared and convinced that it is real, later based on facts I collected I thought it's all just a business game. Well, I was wrong in both cases because as could be expected, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I hate from depth of my heart both alarmists and deniers because neither are better than the other. I feel it really funny how you here consider me a denier while on another forum someone else is accusing me of being alarmist just for not giving up to his arguments which are no better than yours, just for the other side.

Just to have some fun, you can try to look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM (I bet you will like it) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVMotOYMTD4 (well, I guess you won't like that one that much). What's nice and IMO valuable on them is that they both come from the same person - somebody who does not follow trends but goes for scientifically proven facts and is not afraid to say that somebody is lying. There are many more videos on his channel and I consider them all very reliable and valuable source of information but the trick is that you have to listen to and think about them all, not just the ones you like.

Regarding the video I posted in the start of this thread, I consider it being the most rational and most scientifically funded of all I have ever seen, read and listened to so I consider it closest to reality. If you are going to consider it 'opinion of one guy' then please leave as we don't have anything to talk about.

[chelle]

Forged and falsified data in IPCC reports are known and proven fact. People who do such things don't deserve to call themselves scientists.

Here's an intersting update on Professor Richard Muller the guy that you linked to at:
"known and proven fact"

A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data

Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data ...

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

[Kasuha]

Global warming is not about science anymore (if it ever was). Most people on both sides are not scientists and when looking at scientific results they always see what they want to see. The same is it with BEST - alarmists see the glass half full, skeptics see the glass half empty. To me, it did not bring any surprises, it rather confirmed what I always thought about the matter.

[chelle]

Hi,

Here's an other recent article by that Ethan Siegel guy, i thought you might like it

Exposing a Climate Science Fraud

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... ce_fra.php

[Kasuha]

I have done my own math with temperatures a while ago and one of my results is this little prank picture.
It comes from processing satellite temperature record, on vertical axis it displays temperature anomalies, and every single column is monthly average for certain month but I played a bit with the horizontal axis. The question is if you can see what did I actually do with it.

[chelle]

I don't know, seems like you have given it an earthquake look and feel, while its just a graph between 2 and -2, and on the x-axis ...?

The problem with selling an idea is that they, you or me often have to make it more spectacular than it is to get some attention. Its not only the fault of the sales people but also of humans who don't like to adjust their way of doing things.

[Kasuha]

Y axis is temperature anomaly in °C (or K), X axis is time, each column (4 pixels wide) is one month. Each two black vertical lines separate one year ... but I played with the time axis a bit. If the global warming is so clear and undeniable, then it should be quite obvious that I put 1980 right next to 2009, right?

[chelle]

Y axis is temperature anomaly in °C (or K), X axis is time, each column (4 pixels wide) is one month. Each two black vertical lines separate one year ... but I played with the time axis a bit. If the global warming is so clear and undeniable, then it should be quite obvious that I put 1980 right next to 2009, right?

To be honest your graph and the point you are trying to make is not clear.

And in regards to global warming and CO2 it might be like skin cancer you sit in the sun for years without sunscreen and its all good, looking fit and gorgeous, and years later it turns out the Adonis has got skin-cancer, how could that be?

I tell you, you have been plain dumb, yelling about fraud while you should have been looking more carefully at the details. Ignorance is bliss.

[Kasuha]

Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035 are simply not true and so are other several points highlighted by Muller himself in the talk I posted.

I'm looking at the details pretty carefully. And it's not climate what makes me scared.

[chelle]

Are you saying that there are no consequences related to the continous output of gasses?

I'm not an advocate for 'global warming' because i think there are far too many parameters that play a role to judge, but all that smog makes me wonder ... and aren't the polar icecaps breaking off?

btw what is it that scares you? Those toxic spiders from Australia with a red spot on their back that are invading Europe?

[Kasuha]

My key point is that all carbon that can be mined by humans will be mined by humans and ultimately converted to CO2 one way or another. No carbon policies, carbon taxes, or carbon trading are going to change anything on that, they may only affect where will that happen. China, India and Africa are always ready to burn any amount of coal, oil or gas at low price while we build our wind turbines and solar panels. Heck, China will even gladly build them all for us for a reasonable price, right?

All this carbon madness is not making us prepared for the time when we run out of it. It's going to make us poor and weak at the time when that happens while those who don't have problems with it will be rich and strong. That's what I'm scared of.

Everything else about it, models, talks about temperature, weather, climate, predictions, history, ... that's all nothing but ethnic dances.

[chelle]

That is true, but those countries aren't standing still and making things eco-friendly is becoming part of their development plans. If you look at the West and how much it has reduced pollution over the last 30 years, there was a time when all rivers where dead and cities where black. Cars these days only use a fraction of the gas of what they used to, and new ideas are tried out, like this one:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... efficiency

Its a matter of finding the right balance, but indeed with a global population of a few billion people, a war for energy & food is always just around the corner, if we don't make good agreements that benefit all of us, keeping an eye on co2 is one of them. Earth stands before big challenges, and if we start fighting we all lose. But fact is that humans are maturing and there is some global consensus regarding respect for nature, here we only need more discipline and measurements to see that rules and regulations are respected, because nature is the greatest richness we have.

[Kasuha]

There's no universal law specifying how should Nature look like. And Nature does not care about what do we do. Being 'eco-friendly' means affecting Nature in a way we, humans, like or prefer for some reason. And in most cases this reason is that we believe it's the right thing to do because somebody told us.
It's religion. And the main battle is about who will be in charge to tell us what being 'eco-friendly' really means.

[chelle]

In a way it is indeed a religion, its about moral values and respect for all the different life forms on this planet. It took millions of years to form all these organisms out of a cloud of dust, and you wouldn't mind to let it all be erased, in a few hundred years, by one species that has no respect for this amazing process, éh!?

And you seem to worry about the fact that there might be one great dictator?

You know intelligence is not just an individual thing, we are all influenced by each other and the knowledge we share. That's how we will make the right decisions, as a unity with a sensible common interest and with enough rights for one's own personal freedom. Actually this is already the case with the human rights act, and the list of endangered species.

[Kasuha]

You're wrong on so many levels.

Respect for all life forms - so I should respect tuberculosis or AIDS virus? Measles? What about life forms created by genetic engineering? Or is it again humans who decides which life form is worth respect and which is not?
Who are you to decide what is and what is not an amazing process?
There's just no way humans can clear life from Earth. At best they will clear themselves and a few macroscopic species, that's all.
I was not talking about dictators at all, the less about single ones.
And your notion of how decisions are made and claimed to be right is wrong, too.