man made global warming a Hoax?

Richard Lindzen the leading climatologist in the world (aka the top dog in this field) has already said there is is no man made global warming. He did a 20 yr study on it and his data proves everyone who believes GW is real to be wrong. His data showed the complete opposite for all other "GW" graphs out today.

Here is his data

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

Show me another leading climate scientist who can challenge Lindzen 20 yr's worth of data.

I want published data not news articles with cherry picked info.
 
I've never heard an AGW advocate explain "Greenland". Anyone got anything on that?



Is there some claim we don't have warming periods between Ice Ages?



Why did the climate experts in the 70s think we were causing another Ice Age? (see, Newsweek Magazine)



What happens if we adopt new emission standards and were wrong about the AGW theory? We end up killing 40% of the population who can't survive an extreme freeze! Thank goodness Al Gore will have made billions to keep his estate at 78 degrees.



Mike
 
wytstang said:
Richard Lindzen the leading climatologist in the world (aka the top dog in this field) has already said there is is no man made global warming. He did a 20 yr study on it and his data proves everyone who believes GW is real to be wrong. His data showed the complete opposite for all other "GW" graphs out today.

Here is his data

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

Show me another leading climate scientist who can challenge Lindzen 20 yr's worth of data.

I want published data not news articles with cherry picked info.
Click to expand...



Only a small portion of the linked publication was Lindon's and the rest showed graphs but not how the graphs were generated.



Monckton of Brenchley is the editor of the publication and I'm not sure but I think more of his writings and public speeches can be found here:

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, global warming denialist du jour on Capitol Hill (posting from Climate Science Watch)



Robert
 
Re: the various publications and educated opinions posted here. One of the things to keep in the back of your minds is that it is impossible to look at findings from the 70's and those of this decade and understand the exact correlation. My concerns about what people thought was going on 30-40 yrs. ago and what is happening/what we measure today are based on the myriad of things influencing the data/measurements/conclusions. For instance, the rate of global industrialization is significantly different than it was back then. Not just the gross worldwide amount, but the rate of change & the type of industrialization. At no point in the history of this world has the planet experienced what man has been doing to it today. Plus, we can only guess at other global or even interplanetary influences that might be different between then and now (or any past point in history). That's why the algorithm to predict the path of climate change is extraordinarily difficult to create.



Justifying the conclusions, either way, is difficult. My skepticism occurs when the conclusions are taken to the extreme, since they may not be accurate at all. We have extremely "precise" data presented, but perhaps not very accurate conclusions supported by the data. Just like Iraq having WMD's, none of the actions (reactions) proposed by either side should be entered into without review and scientific consensus. But, I wouldn't put my head in the sand and subscribe to the worldwide political or economic conspiracy theories either. We are influencing the climate........much differently than it has every been done before. The groundswell of climate change examination exists because something is different. None of us want it to be true nor do we want to "pay" the cost of trying to fix it, especially if it were to be an WMD "hoax". But, you can feel and see the differences. And, if these differences are partially or even mostly driven by cyclic planetary behavior, we better make sure we DON"T screw up that "natural" cycle either. Get it??



See ya. :wavey
 
Nobody ever wants any change, especially for the worst, but the political "climate" always seems to be the (me) $ figure.



Unless we can have a honest, true fact discussion, about climate and the world industries, we will never arrive at a true solution.



The problem now is that there might be some greedy plans put in place that is not in the best nature for all of us, and once it has begun it will never be undone.
 
WhyteWizard said:
"A liberal who goes by the username WhyteWizard. Seriously? The irony simply doesn't get any thicker than that."





I can see, you're an expert on thick.



Robert
Click to expand...



I have an idea for you Mr. KKK, how about you outline - via your own words and rationale - your stance on climate change and the proposed Cap & Trade legislation?



If you notice, basically everyone else active within this thread has done so, yet all you've done is introduce random tangents and post links to half of your personal bookmarks. I realize that is standard MO for anyone who is both uneducated and of liberal inclination, but I know if there's anyone who can break out of that box, it's you.
 
WhyteWizard said:
Only a small portion of the linked publication was Lindon's and the rest showed graphs but not how the graphs were generated.



Monckton of Brenchley is the editor of the publication and I'm not sure but I think more of his writings and public speeches can be found here:

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, global warming denialist du jour on Capitol Hill (posting from Climate Science Watch)



Robert
Click to expand...

Correct the first article is Lindzen & Choi 15/20 yr data on CO2 (and other green house gases) proving how little it affects climate temperatures. The UN scientists claimed if CO2 doubled the earths surface temp would rise by 6F. Lindzen & Choi (an actual climatologist) data proves them wrong, if the CO2 concentrations doubles the earths surface temp will rise a harmless 1F.

Observed reality vs. erroneous

computer predictions: Scatter-plots

of net flux of outgoing long-wave

radiation, as measured by the

satellites of the Earth Radiation

Budget Experiment over a 15-year

period (upper left panel) and as

predicted by 11 of the computer

models relied upon by the UN (all

other panels), against anomalies in

global mean sea surface temperature

over the period.



The mismatch between reality and

prediction is entirely clear. It is this

astonishing graph that provides the

final evidence that the UN has

absurdly exaggerated the effect not

only of CO2 but of all greenhouse

gases on global mean surface

temperature.



What it means: If the atmospheric

CO2 concentration doubles, global

temperature will rise not by the 6 F

imagined by the UN’s climate

panel, but by a harmless 1 F.



Source: Lindzen & Choi (2009).
Click to expand...
 
ten39 said:
I have an idea for you Mr. KKK, how about you outline - via your own words and rationale - your stance on climate change and the proposed Cap & Trade legislation?



If you notice, basically everyone else active within this thread has done so, yet all you've done is introduce random tangents and post links to half of your personal bookmarks. I realize that is standard MO for anyone who is both uneducated and of liberal inclination, but I know if there's anyone who can break out of that box, it's you.
Click to expand...



Why you'd think I'd waste any more time with a name calling third grader is beyond me.



Robert
 
Hey guys, what is it with this name calling and critical commentary about supposed political/moral, etc. inclinations of members. How about everyone cut out the crap!!??



The debate here needs to focus on how to obtain the correct data and appropriate conclusions to draw from it. All this debate and quotes by the so called "climatologist" de jour or FOX News/MSNBC political pundit needs to be sifted down to the facts and made apolitical for us. Take the political disposition out of it!! This is NOT a conservative vs. liberal debate....it is a US/mankind debate. The topic of climate change/global warming it too large to be just nonsense. Things have changed and are continuing to change, climatically. The real question is how will we deal with the results as they occur in the most fact filled, fiscally prudent & responsible way. The parallel is the whole Iraq/WMD thing. We can not draw the wrong conclusions about the data and suppositions presented. On the other hand, if the data holds (and I think there is more on the side of it being factual, than not) then we have to deal with it, not bury our heads in the sand and "hope" it isn't true.



But, before all that, we can agree to disagree, but let's focus on the DATA and the right conclusions from it.......I doubt any of us have enough of the actual proof sources to make a factual conclusion. And quoting the he said/she said article of the moment just ain't cuttin' it. All of this ends up sounding like courtroom posturing. Let's see how many "expert witnesses" we can find for the prosecution and for the defense. If you get one, I can get one plus a second and so forth. Ugh..................it gives me a headache.



Of course, that's just my opinion.................I could be wrong!:) (But probably not!):)



See ya. :wavey
 
Unfortunately the quote unquote data from those pushing GW was been proven to be tampered with. People need to take there heads out of there butt and stop listing to political figures like Al Sore and just ignore the data (that isn't tampered with) saying that we are cooling not warming (hence snow fall in Houston setting earliest record).
 
Or, the latest in a season that we have had snow here in Roch., NY....counter to the earliest snowfall in Houston, TX.



It's obviously a lot more complicated than that and a data point like your example (or mine) doesn't mean much. And, the quote/unquote issue comes from voices on both sides of this issue. Here's another consideration - I've listened to them both; who do you think has more credibility............Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh? If you think Gore's info. is full of it, try listening to the rhetoric coming out of Rush's mouth. AND, check the "data" from that guy. Ugh........ Personally, I wouldn't focus much on the political background from either one, just be sure to listen to what sounds like a "reasonable & plausible" argument.



Of course, that's just my opinion.......I could be wrong!:) (But, not like.:))



See ya. :wavey





wytstang said:
Unfortunately the quote unquote data from those pushing GW was been proven to be tampered with. People need to take there heads out of there butt and stop listing to political figures like Al Sore and just ignore the data (that isn't tampered with) saying that we are cooling not warming (hence snow fall in Houston setting earliest record).
Click to expand...
 
Why not agree to pay $100 billion (since now we talk in terms of Trillions) to any group who is correct at predicting the temperature at 100 different governmental-selected locations at noon on December 31, 2025? Each group who wants to play agrees to pay the American taxpayers on December 31, 2010, to enter the competition, and make their predictions, $100 million (or forego the same amount of current federally authorized or future authorized research funds).



Who do you think would take those odds, when the AGW proponents ask the American taxpayer to agree, based on their "predictions", to change our capitalist system?



Let's ask these people, such as Al Gore, who are telling us to change the American way of living based on their opinions, to put up or shut up! Let's not just change America based upon their "assertions".



Mike
 
Just follow the money - it's not about science or saving the planet, it's about scamming the producing nations to give billions to third world despots. I think we're all putting our kids and their kids into a future where the US is weak and the standard of living, the freedoms we once had and the future is all changed - for the worse. I think it was Churchill that said with socialism we all share the pain. If Sir Winston could see England today, he'd probably smile and say "told the bastards this would happen"
 
JuneBug said:
I think it was Churchill that said with socialism we all share the pain. If Sir Winston could see England today, he'd probably smile and say "told the bastards this would happen"
Click to expand...



Margaret Thatcher said "the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money".
 
tenorplayer23 said:
Hey guys, what is it with this name calling and critical commentary about supposed political/moral, etc. inclinations of members. How about everyone cut out the crap!!??



The debate here needs to focus on how to obtain the correct data and appropriate conclusions to draw from it. All this debate and quotes by the so called "climatologist" de jour or FOX News/MSNBC political pundit needs to be sifted down to the facts and made apolitical for us. Take the political disposition out of it!! This is NOT a conservative vs. liberal debate....it is a US/mankind debate. The topic of climate change/global warming it too large to be just nonsense. Things have changed and are continuing to change, climatically. The real question is how will we deal with the results as they occur in the most fact filled, fiscally prudent & responsible way. The parallel is the whole Iraq/WMD thing. We can not draw the wrong conclusions about the data and suppositions presented. On the other hand, if the data holds (and I think there is more on the side of it being factual, than not) then we have to deal with it, not bury our heads in the sand and "hope" it isn't true.



But, before all that, we can agree to disagree, but let's focus on the DATA and the right conclusions from it.......I doubt any of us have enough of the actual proof sources to make a factual conclusion. And quoting the he said/she said article of the moment just ain't cuttin' it. All of this ends up sounding like courtroom posturing. Let's see how many "expert witnesses" we can find for the prosecution and for the defense. If you get one, I can get one plus a second and so forth. Ugh..................it gives me a headache.



Of course, that's just my opinion.................I could be wrong!:) (But probably not!):)



See ya. :wavey
Click to expand...



I'm going to second this post and call it a day on this thread.



Robert
 
tenorplayer23 said:
The debate here needs to focus on how to obtain the correct data and appropriate conclusions to draw from it. All this debate and quotes by the so called "climatologist" de jour or FOX News/MSNBC political pundit needs to be sifted down to the facts and made apolitical for us. Take the political disposition out of it!! This is NOT a conservative vs. liberal debate....it is a US/mankind debate. The topic of climate change/global warming it too large to be just nonsense. Things have changed and are continuing to change, climatically. The real question is how will we deal with the results as they occur in the most fact filled, fiscally prudent & responsible way. The parallel is the whole Iraq/WMD thing. We can not draw the wrong conclusions about the data and suppositions presented. On the other hand, if the data holds (and I think there is more on the side of it being factual, than not) then we have to deal with it, not bury our heads in the sand and "hope" it isn't true.



But, before all that, we can agree to disagree, but let's focus on the DATA and the right conclusions from it.......I doubt any of us have enough of the actual proof sources to make a factual conclusion. And quoting the he said/she said article of the moment just ain't cuttin' it. All of this ends up sounding like courtroom posturing. Let's see how many "expert witnesses" we can find for the prosecution and for the defense. If you get one, I can get one plus a second and so forth. Ugh..................it gives me a headache.



Of course, that's just my opinion.................I could be wrong!:) (But probably not!):)



See ya. :wavey
Click to expand...



This is not an issue that even if true spells the end of mankind. Humans have lived through ice ages and warmer climates than we have now. A warmer climate means longer growing seasons, more inhabitable areas of earth (like northern Canada and Russia), lower snow removal costs in the winter, lower gas and coal emissions due to less need for winter heating, etc. As far as I am concerned the earth is too cold as it is. I'll take 110 in the summer if it means no snow or ice in the winter.



I want to see two things:



1. Proof that the current climate is the one we need to lock in

2. Proof we can then prevent any future variations from that norm, regardless of anything the sun does, ocean currents, etc.
 
History is full of similar examples where science has been debated with both sides inventing or suppressing evidence to make their point for personal or financial gain.



The earth's climate is changing but it hard to tell if man is the root cause but mankind is responsible for destroying the planet -- polluting the air, water, seas with its activities. Unfortunately those trying to reduce man's destruction (like recycling) often get white washed as green nuts along with the overall climate debate.



For example, if the river is rising and going to flood your house...whether if it was man made (like runoff caused by construction) or nature (just a lot of rain), some actions are common -- move to higher ground.
 
tenorplayer23 said:
Or, the latest in a season that we have had snow here in Roch., NY....counter to the earliest snowfall in Houston, TX.



It's obviously a lot more complicated than that and a data point like your example (or mine) doesn't mean much. And, the quote/unquote issue comes from voices on both sides of this issue. Here's another consideration - I've listened to them both; who do you think has more credibility............Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh? If you think Gore's info. is full of it, try listening to the rhetoric coming out of Rush's mouth. AND, check the "data" from that guy. Ugh........ Personally, I wouldn't focus much on the political background from either one, just be sure to listen to what sounds like a "reasonable & plausible" argument.



Of course, that's just my opinion.......I could be wrong!:) (But, not like.:))



See ya. :wavey
Click to expand...

The difference between the 2 you just listed is one is set up to make millions off of GW and the other is not. One is trying to get laws passed via false data and the other is not. Funny you said lets not make this a right or left subject yet attack someone one the right.

The data I've presented comes from scientist in the climate field you and others have not. I'm not worried about 2 figures in the media/radio. I'm worried about laws being passed based on false/tampered science that are going to affect my way of life financially. I don't want to pay more for a problem that doesn't exists.

We have bigger problems to deal with.
 
Why won't Al Gore go on any show or appear at any event that has a "denier" attending? The fact that Al surely isn't changing his lifestyle (house using many times what a normal house uses in electricity, private planes, etc.) should mean something. His Cap & Trade idea will result in almost every other American changing their lifestyle.



The argument that "I'm buying green credits" doesn't hold water, when Gore owns the companies that are selling "green credits".....he's just moving money from one pocket to the other.



Think he has an incentive to get Cap & Trade passed before the fit hits the shan on Climategate and the global cooling info? Maybe that's why the Congress is moving so quickly on these things....



Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top