Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Global Warming

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
 #246788  by Bill Putney
 February 4th, 2011, 7:43 am
krautmaster wrote:All politics aside,...
Sorry, but it's all about politics.

Read up on the data that NASA's GOES satellites returned showing that what the pretended scientists have been telling us is false.

If someone can explain how, as has been adamantly (and falsely) claimed for years, that CO2 causes warming, and now it's not warming after all that we need to be worried about, then why the push is still on to cut CO2 emissions, then I might listen. But no one will explain that inconvenient truth. Fact is, as I said in my previous post, the charts that showed that CO2 precedes temperature rises, and therefore causes warming, were faked. The data was real, but Al Gore and crew shifted the time scales of the two sets of data (CO2 and temperature) to make it look like CO2 precedes and causes temperature increase, when in fact when the real data, the real science, is looked at, first comes the temperature increase, which causes release of CO2 (the CO2 increase *followed*, not preceded, the temperature increase).

So go ahead and explain how, since CO2 causes temperature increase - which is what the climate "scientists" have been claiming for years, and we are going to have a mini-ice age, we should cut CO2 emissions. Does CO2 increase or decrease temperatures (according to the people propounding this stuff)?

BTW - it is driven by solar cycles. Things will come back around evenutally. The earth's climate has never been static. The only effect we will have trying to control it is to further wreck our economy (which is one of the goals).

Cap and trade has nothing to do about helping people or "The Earth". It *is* about politics and control and money. It's about creating a false economy that can be manipulated by pure emotion, built on the false science of CO2, with CO2 credits being the currency. It's all about redistribution of wealth from the U.S. into the hands of the political class with the pretended goal of helping emerging nations. The union leaders are buying into it because they owe the people behind it. Funny thing is that cap and trade will drive jobs overseas like you've never seen before - but the union leaders are selling the party line to their members. Only time will tell if the union memebrs will buy it and end up shooting themselves in the foot (unless they get additional payoffs for doing so).

GE is in line to profit, yet look at statistics on their recent history of moving jobs overseas. Why is it that one of the worst offenders of what people who claim to care criticize other companies for never gets publicly criticized for it? Because they're playing the game to make it happen. It's a win-win for them and the political class.

BTW - what's the weather like in other parts of the world this week?

WHy is it that all the "mistakes" in reporting gobal warming/climate change "science" always always always end up skewing the conclusions to the claimed problem. The mistakes are never never never in the other direction. And the people who blow the whistle on the faked data end up getting personally destroyed - like the Assistant State Climatologist for the State Of Washington when he stumbled across and reported the faking of snow pack information for the Cascade Mountains that negated the conclusions about "global warming" being claimed to be supported by the faked data?

Why, when they cut way down on the number of reporting stations for temperature in the U.S. and Canada did they cherry pick the stations that were showing reverse trends so that the future data, by defintion, would show the trend that was desired by those who had a vested interest in perpetuating the lie?

Why was NASA data faked to show and spread headlines of "the warmest October in history", when it turns out that they copied September's data into October (how do you copy data from a 30 day month into a 31 day month without realizing your mistake?) - yet they didn't report the error and false conclusion when it was brought to their attention.

Why do they still say that '98 was the coldest year on record when they discovered errors in the data that showed that it was not - the coldest was actually one year in the 1930's?

Why are the results from the NASA GOES satellites that took thermal imaging that turned all the models and claims of the global warmers into a cocked hat ignored?

Why are all the normal advancing and retreating of glaciers only reported when they retreat, and then when they seasonally or otherwise advance, that is ignored?

Not about politics? It's all about poilitics. And money. Nothing to do with true science.
User avatar
 #246815  by 300maximilien
 February 4th, 2011, 11:34 am
Bill Putney wrote:Sorry, but it's all about politics.
Bill....you do know Rich is a retired Meteorologist right??

I agree "Global Warming" is all about Politics too. But even with that said.......like Rich mentions change IS happening and there is NOTHING we little humans can do to stop it. Now could we help prolong are chances with change? Sure we can.
User avatar
 #246817  by krautmaster
 February 4th, 2011, 12:14 pm
Like I said, forget about the politics for a minute (almost everything is about short term political gain anyway) and also pretend for a minute that mankind has had absolutely nothing to do with it. None of it really matters in the long run, because earths climate is changing and we cannot do a thing stop it. We know that earths climate changes frequently, swinging from extremely cold to very warm in as little as a few decades (and vice versa), and when this happens there are serious consequences. We need to stop carping about the causes and plan ahead to deal with the consequences. Humans, especially the unheard of billions of us on the planet today, require more resources than the earth can maintain-we are now well beyond our "carrying capacity" and as food and water become even scarcer what do you think will happen? How many of you know that at the end of the last ice age just 12,000 years ago there were as few as 20,000 (up to a maximum of 200,000) humans left on the planet? Only a very few people were able to survive that climate change, and as we swing into a period of warming how many of us will be able to survive this swing? Imagine what is going to happen when millions more people begin starving, and the entire planet devolves into war,famine, and disease. Even soylent green will be a luxury... It is going to be horrible and we need to start planning ahead now.
 #246825  by DKano
 February 4th, 2011, 4:18 pm
Hate to sound like a **** but we will get to a point where there will be too many humans on earth. Massive volcanic eruptions followed by an ice age might be our planet's way of starting over. :D
 #246827  by Tarheel
 February 4th, 2011, 4:40 pm
Good point; polution is caused by people, more people = more polution.
User avatar
 #246836  by Bill Putney
 February 4th, 2011, 6:32 pm
300maximilien wrote:Bill....you do know Rich is a retired Meteorologist right??
I had seen where he mentioned elsewhere that he is a meteorologist - didn't know that he was a retired meteoroligst.

I respect that, but it doesn't change the facts. I do look forward to his input - perhaps he *can* answer some questions that I have asked - such as about the CO2 - if it causes warming as we've been told, but now, to save face, the people who were warning us about global warming are now saying they really meant climate change - they never really meant warming (a lie), then - again, if it is not warming, and CO2 supposedly causes warming (which it doesn't - it is a result of it), then why are these same people wanting to mandate that we load the economy with yet another burden that - if what they've ben saying is true - will accomplish exactly the opposite of what they are *now* saying is needed?

So, to sum up, what needs to be answered are:
1. Does increased CO2 cause warming? (careful how you answer - you may trap yourself with the next question, plus, the data (if it is not fraudulently manipulated like the global warming "scientists" did) shows the opposite - i.e., that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase, not the other way around)
2. Since the claimed problem *now* is "change", not warming per-se, why do we need to push ourselves even closer to bankruptcy to limit CO2 (plant food, so plants can thrive and produce oxygen, which we breath) which, according to the so-called climate experts, will cool things off if reduced?

I agree "Global Warming" is all about Politics too. But even with that said.......like Rich mentions change IS happening and there is NOTHING we little humans can do to stop it. Now could we help prolong are chances with change? Sure we can.
Except that, like I said, what they are proposing doing (reducing CO2), according to what they have been telling us (increased CO2 causes temperature increase) will have the opposite effect of what they are saying is the problem we face - i.e., *not* *warming*, but "change".

krautmaster wrote:...because earths climate is changing and we cannot do a thing stop it...
Thank you. But they are telling us that we have to spend whatever it takes to change it. So if we can't change it, but we are going to spend whatever it takes to do so, does that not sound like a plan to bankrupt ourselves. I mean, if our goal was to bankrupt ourselves, can you think of a better plan to do that than to spend money to change something that can't effectively be changed (both you and Craig said we can't change it)?
We know that earths climate changes frequently, swinging from extremely cold to very warm in as little as a few decades (and vice versa), and when this happens there are serious consequences. We need to stop carping about the causes and plan ahead to deal with the consequences.
But that's not what they are saying. They are not saying to anticipate and prepare for the consequences. They are saying to change what you already said can't appreciably be changed.
Humans, especially the unheard of billions of us on the planet today, require more resources than the earth can maintain-we are now well beyond our "carrying capacity" and as food and water become even scarcer what do you think will happen?
Most of the civilized world - Europe in particular - is below the replacement birth rate. I guess the problem is the undeveloped world. Also, that statistic is mainly true about the non-Muslim population. Muslim population is growing well above the replacement birth rate. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about that - going in too many directions as it is.
How many of you know that at the end of the last ice age just 12,000 years ago there were as few as 20,000 (up to a maximum of 200,000) humans left on the planet? Only a very few people were able to survive that climate change, and as we swing into a period of warming how many of us will be able to survive this swing? Imagine what is going to happen when millions more people begin starving, and the entire planet devolves into war,famine, and disease. Even soylent green will be a luxury... It is going to be horrible and we need to start planning ahead now.
That very well may be. But what is being proposed is equivalent to saying "I broke my leg, so I'm going to put a tourniquet on my arm. I may lose the arm in the process, but I had to do *something* because of my broken leg. It woud be irresponsible not to put that tourniquet on my arm." Not only has the real problem not been addressed but a new, serious problem has been created in the name of making everything better.
User avatar
 #246848  by krautmaster
 February 4th, 2011, 7:47 pm
Be careful where you get your talking points (and find out who is paying them to report the "facts"--IE: Koch Industries) - the climatology scientists did not fake their data, no matter what WorldNetDaily and Fox news say:

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
User avatar
 #246852  by Bill Putney
 February 4th, 2011, 8:41 pm
krautmaster wrote:Be careful where you get your talking points (and find out who is paying them to report the "facts"--IE: Koch Industries) - the climatology scientists did not fake their data, no matter what WorldNetDaily and Fox news say:

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
Rich - You are making assumptions about my facts that are simply untrue. NONE of the faking that I talked about had anything to do with climategate - in fact I've discussed them many times before climategate even happened.

The many examples of faking of data that I talked about are well documented (and again, came to light long before climategate).

You can check them out yourself.

Fact: Snow pack data was faked by picking local maxima during the earlier years of the data and picking local minima during later years of the data. The Assistant State Climatologist for the State of Washington was releaved of his position for discovering and revealing the fraud, and was targeted for character assassination by the global warming community and the liberal media. This happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: NASA copied and pasted September's temperature measurements for October for one recent year and then made press releases saying that it was the warmest October on record. When the "mistake" was brought to light, the correction was buried by the press, and no one can explain how you can paste data from a 30 day month into a 31 day month without the "mistake" being obvious to the person making the "mistake" before it is published. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: They cut down on the number of "official temperature measuring stations". Problem is, they eliminated the ones that were more remotely located and were not showing temperature rises, and kept the ones that were near increasing local sources of heat in growing populated areas. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: Climate "scientists" were left scratching their heads when the infrared camera results came back from NASA's GOES satellites showing nothing of what they expected regarding areas that had suposedly "warmed up", and the models that had been developed were shown to be totally false. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: The famous boomerang graph showing continuing increases in global temperatures into the foreseeable future based on formulas that were supposedly developed from the models that had been developed were discovered to increase the further into the future you went no matter what the past measurements had done - IOW, the increases in temperature were, according to the formula used to create the graph, based strictly on distance into the future regardless of the temperature data from the past that was entered into the formula. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: The graphs in which they knowingly time shifted the CO2 and temperature data to make it look like CO2 increases before and therefore causes temperature increases instead of what the real non-time-shifted data showed, that is that temperature increases cause release of CO2 into the atmosphere. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: Someone installed an a.c. unit with the condensor air blowing on one of the official temperature measuring stations. The huge increase in that one station's measurements affected the average of all of the stations so much that there were headlines about global warming accelerating at an exponential pace. When the problem with the one station was brought to light and the data corrected and 1998 was no longer "the hottest year on record", but instead was tied with a year on the 1930's (I'm thinking 1934, 1936, or 1938), the correction was squelched from the public. People still falsely tout 1998 as the hottest year on record. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Fact: All the global warming hubbub was created over a supposed 1°C rise over an entire century. That happened long before climategate, and is documented.

Are you ready yet to answer the question regarding if CO2 causes temperature increase or not, and if so, why we are ready to bankrupt ourselves to decrease its output when the new claim is that there isn't really global warming, but simply "change"? (remember - your leg's broken, so you put a tourniquet on your arm)

Why are you ignoring the simple question?
User avatar
 #246853  by krautmaster
 February 4th, 2011, 8:49 pm
Not ignoring the question-as I said earlier, it doesn't matter-we're heating up and can't stop it. Why are they trying to cut CO2 from fossil fuels, and why are the oil companies fighting back so hard? Quick answer is the oil is running out and governments want to wean themselves off it, while the oilmen want to continue to gouge us until its all gone. Believe me, if the oil guys could find a way to legally charge us for sunlight, they'd heavily invest in solar power. Read up on PEAK OIL (as will I) and lets talk about that subject later--I'm taking the wife out to dinner now....
User avatar
 #246855  by Bill Putney
 February 4th, 2011, 9:00 pm
By the way - I'm really confused about whether there is gobal *warming* or not. On the one hand I'm hearing that it is not warming per-se - it is that we are in for "change". Yet that climategate article you linked says that the "scientists" have unequivocally proven that global warming - not just change, but *warming* - is real. So, when you answer the question on CO2 and temperature increase and whether we should be trying to force warming or cooling to occur (though I'm also hearing you say that we can't change it no matter what anyway), please also address which "scientific" take on the situation I'm supposed to believe - warming or just "changes".

Question: How much rise in temperature do even the proponents of global warming say there has been?
Answer: 1°C rise in the last 100 years.
(That's not my answer - that's *their* answer. 1°C rise in 100 years - and that's with the people reporting that clearly motivated to exaggerate the problem to the point of faking the data to do so. As an engineer I'd say that the gage R&R capability is worse than 1°C even if the people involved were unbiased and not having a foregone conclusion to prove.)
krautmaster wrote:...I'm taking the wife out to dinner now....
Ya'll have a good evening.
User avatar
 #246999  by krautmaster
 February 7th, 2011, 10:45 am
Take a look at this video - he explains the problem better than most:

User avatar
 #247014  by Bill Putney
 February 7th, 2011, 1:01 pm
I appreciate the effort, Rich. But that guy pretended to use science while presenting none. And, believe me - the science organizations are biased - specifically dealing with this subject. If you are in the science community, you can't get funded if you buck the false science that is being propounded - so the honest ones in that particular field are booted out or leave on their own so they can get jobs elsewhere and stay alive. The rest are left to tow the party line and they "peer review" each others' publications and then tell us how important peer review is in the world of science (like the UN IPCC of 2007). It is absolutely disgusting.

The guy who did the video needs to look at real science. Like the GOES satellites. You might want to look into it too. But you might have trouble finding much about it since the information has been buried so deep due to not sending back the results that the "scientists" wanted to see. You can bet that if it had, we'd be hearing about the GOES satellites constantly. But, again, we're not dealing with real science when it comes to those promoting this stuff (like the guy in the video).

People do need to also be aware of the elimination of a large number of the temperature reporting stations. They took the ones that were in isolated areas that weren't showing the increases and got rid of them, and kept the ones near areas of increasing local sources of heat. That's the type of crap that is being done and published as scientific information and from which policy decisions are being made by the political class.

You already said "earth[']s climate is changing and we cannot do a thing [to] stop it". Yet you seem to be pushing the argument that we need to do it anyway. That is a major discrepancy in what you seem to be saying, and until you clear that up, there's really not much worth discussing.

So, again, we're back to proposing putting the tourniquet on the arm that isn't broken. We're creating a new serious problem without addressing what supposedly does need to be taken care of. That would be the upper left box in the "risk analysis" in the video - the absolute worst scenario of all possible choices.

BTW - the article on "climategate" that you linked earlier was full of nothing but doubletalk. I challenge anyone to read the article and not come to that conclusion.
User avatar
 #247079  by krautmaster
 February 8th, 2011, 4:18 am
Bill,
I'd like to know where you are getting your information... there is no conspiracy among climatology scientists to hide or falsify data. The peer review process is there to weed out those who would try such a thing. GOES satellite data is used by Meteorologists to predict short term weather patterns, Climatologists couldn't give a rats (CENSORED) about GOES satellite data -they like playing with ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and chemical reactions in shale layers in Montana. GOES satellite visual channels are used to see snow pack, fog, smoke, blowing sand, etc. IR channels are used to see cloud top temperatures so we can determine if they are low-mid level rain/snow producers, or towering cumulonimbus heavy rain/hail producers. The Water Vapor channels are used to show the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere so we can predict how heavy the precipitation will be. There is no smoking gun hiding here - I used the GOES satellite daily for twenty years, and taught satellite interpretation at the Air Forces weather forecasting school, so I would know.... (don't ask too many questions about the NEXRAD radar though...it's useful for all kinds of stuff).

Now for the "closing weather stations that don't report rising temperatures". WOW is all I can say to that conspiracy theory... Up until the early 1980's there were NWS observers at every single airfield in the country-if there was a public runway, there were observers who worked there. Reagan cut the NWS budget by 1/3, and so all the little places lost their observers. The main points of focus for the NWS today are aviation safety at large airports and severe weather warnings. We don't have the money to make sure Bessy the cow is comfortably tucked into her barn on a cold night in Backwoods Arkansas... there is no cabal of global warming scientists hiding evidence of cooler temperatures, its simple economics and has been so for the last thirty years.

Lastly (I'm tired of wasting my time on this tonight) no one (especially the government) could keep a secret like this- if there were a conspiracy to make all this stuff up, it would have come to light a long, long,time ago. Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all the other guys that get paid millions by the oil interests to spew these lies are the problem, not the scientists.... ah, nothing sells like controversy.....
User avatar
 #247082  by Bill Putney
 February 8th, 2011, 7:42 am
krautmaster wrote:Bill,
I'd like to know where you are getting your information... there is no conspiracy among climatology scientists to hide or falsify data.
Provably false. You can search it yourself. Start with the Cascade Mountain snow pack atat cherry picking and the Assistant State Climatologist getting relieved of his position and character assassinated for uncovering that hoax - then come back and tell me I made it up and it never happened. That's one of many examples (I've already mentioned many others which you could have already researched, but you haven't). Once you copmplete that one, I'll give you another one. We'll take them one at a time, and then we'll see what's made up and what's not. Like I said: The "mistakes" always happen in the direction of skewing the data towards GW - *never* in the opposite direction.
The peer review process is there to weed out those who would try such a thing.
And like many things set up to prevent such things, can be and does get abused. It's true of accounting auditors, and it is certainly true of the global warming community - documented.
GOES satellite data is used by Meteorologists to predict short term weather patterns, Climatologists couldn't give a rats (CENSORED) about GOES satellite data -they like playing with ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and chemical reactions in shale layers in Montana. GOES satellite visual channels are used to see snow pack, fog, smoke, blowing sand, etc. IR channels are used to see cloud top temperatures so we can determine if they are low-mid level rain/snow producers, or towering cumulonimbus heavy rain/hail producers. The Water Vapor channels are used to show the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere so we can predict how heavy the precipitation will be.
All that means is that you have been out of the loop about the IR information that blew the lid off all the data and incorrect models within the last 6 or 7 years. It created quite an uproar. Climatoligists not interested? That's funny - they reference them in their own dialogs all the time. They are just careful never to publically discuss the "unfortunate" findings in recent times.
There is no smoking gun hiding here - I used the GOES satellite daily for twenty years, and taught satellite interpretation at the Air Forces weather forecasting school, so I would know...
That has no bearing on the damage that the facts coming back from them did to the global warming community in recent years.

Now for the "closing weather stations that don't report rising temperatures". WOW is all I can say to that conspiracy theory... Up until the early 1980's there were NWS observers at every single airfield in the country-if there was a public runway, there were observers who worked there. Reagan cut the NWS budget by 1/3, and so all the little places lost their observers. The main points of focus for the NWS today are aviation safety at large airports and severe weather warnings. We don't have the money to make sure Bessy the cow is comfortably tucked into her barn on a cold night in Backwoods Arkansas... there is no cabal of global warming scientists hiding evidence of cooler temperatures, its simple economics and has been so for the last thirty years.
Again, you're bringing up stuff from years ago that have no bearing on what I am talking about. The stuff I'm talking about happened in the present century. Fact: The number of temperature stations were drastically cut, and the ones to be cut were cherry picked to falsify the average data. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Lastly (I'm tired of wasting my time on this tonight) no one (especially the government) could keep a secret like this- if there were a conspiracy to make all this stuff up, it would have come to light a long, long,time ago.
Except that it's done out in the open and people still accept the side that is falsified and then presented as punlic info.
Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and all the other guys that get paid millions by the oil interests to spew these lies are the problem, not the scientists.... ah, nothing sells like controversy.....
But of course you don't believe in conspiracy theories.

When are you going to address the fact that you say we can't change the climate yet we should bankrupt ourselves to attempt to do so (that upper left box in the video)?
User avatar
 #247085  by krautmaster
 February 8th, 2011, 8:51 am
There is an reptilian alien base on the dark side of the moon, Atlantis is off the coast of Florida but you can't find it because of the Bermuda triangle, the black helicopters are coming for you ... get a grip on reality! Sorry, I'm done with this topic ... you know what you know because some yahoo said it on the TV or radio, and you will never be swayed by true facts.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12