Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 26
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 2 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
^^^^^
oh, come on. That was a single article suggesting there might be a cooling problem caused by increased pollution particulates. It was quickly refuted as subsequent study showed that greenhouse gas increases more than offset particulate increases.

What confuses the public is a media that persists in giving equal billing to far less scientifically based skeptic arguments, giving an impression that far more division exists in the climate science community than is actually the case.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 27
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 8:07:10 AM
Actually even that isnt black and white

I remember reading a study around the time there was the scaremongering about a sudden and imminent man made ice age (which ONLY actually seemed to cause huge price increases of fuel, gas and electricity at the time) which stated water vapour was actually not only the most impactive greenhouse gas, but by far the most prominent

But one of its main characteristics isnt actually warming, but that increased warm periods would be quite capable of causing widespread and dense cloud cover due to more water vapour being released. Which in turn would reflect more light back into space and could cause depending on amount, variance and fluctuation either an increased warming, or when reaching a sustained percentage of cloud cover a rapid cooling as the ground temperature wouldnt recieve enough daylight to warm it in the first place

Theres quite a few theories floating around that postulate the same thing, that one of the basic and natural functions with the earths ecosystem is that increased heat can in some circumstances lead to such an increase in cloud cover and density rapidly cycling that more heat would be shielded from the surface than allowed through.

Which could be one way the planet regulates itself
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 28
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 8:22:04 AM

Which could be one way the planet regulates itself


Yeah. Tell that to Venus.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 29
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 9:13:58 AM
I did and she said

"I got it
Yeah, baby, I got it
I'm your Venus, I'm your fire
At your desire
"

Which kind of confuddled me to be honest
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 30
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 9:15:00 AM

results of random, non-regulated occurrences can be captured by a statistic

You can. It's called a random distribution. If it's *not* random, you get a different distribution. That's what statistics do. But you knew that, right?

Using a cool phrase like "ludic fallacy" doesn't change that.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 31
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 10:29:01 AM
I had to look up Ludic fallacy.



Nassim Taleb is one such thinker, and in his book “The Black Swan” he has coined the phrase “The Ludic Fallacy” to represent the false belief that the metaphor of games of chance adequately describes uncertainties in the real world. So instead of real life being one huge trip to a casino, Taleb sees “Black Swans” flying in from the land of “Unknown Unknowns” to confound the odds. To avoid missing the plot as Horatio did in Hamlet, Taleb argues that we should remove our blinkers and accept that we live in a truly uncertain world. That way we will be better prepared to cope in a world where change, and with it further arrivals of “Black Swans”, is faster than ever before.

Ours is a confident and uniquely prosperous age, still full of inequalities to be sure, but one in which we feel we can be proud of our many advances; as creators of machines, makers of life, destroyers of worlds. Masters of the Universe, indeed. Are we too confident, too proud? That is what we shall argue using as our vehicle one of Taleb’s catchy ideas – the “Ludic Fallacy”. “Ludic” is from the Latin ludus, meaning games as in the Ludo we played as children, and “Fallacy” from the Latin fallacia meaning deceit, used nowadays to describe a false notion or argument. Taleb uses the term “Ludic Fallacy” as shorthand for what he sees as the false notion that games of chance are a sound way of describing uncertainty in real life. He comes to this conclusion from first-hand experiences of life in war-torn Lebanon as well as trading on Wall Street. His is not the conventional wisdom. Far from it, for, as Taleb rejoices in reminding us in his book, despite their serial failures at prediction, Nobel Prize-winning economists and Wall Street “quants” perpetuate the belief that our computerised models describe the world adequately. The facts seem to justify his scepticism. Not only that, but it is almost self-evidently true that the world does and will contain things we don’t understand or know. Taleb is by no means the first one to spot this problem with uncertainty. Many of the great thinkers about probability – Keynes, Shackle, Savage – have been there before him, but they mostly only stayed a short while speculating on the land of “Unknown Unknowns”, before moving quickly back to the safe ground of presuming we knew the “space of possibilities” and could apply probability theory to the problem.


Keynes? Aww.. come on he was not a great thinker..... lol

"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 32
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 11:26:23 AM
Sigh...The IPCC is a political body, not really a scientific one there are MANY non scientists who make up that body and decide what appears in reports/studies. So really your quote from them is every bit as low brow as your wiki quote. The IPCC is working to see the carbon tax becomes reality. This global warming is bull. We have gone through many warming and cooling periods and it is because of...........THE SUN !! What a concept LOL.

The 2,500 scientists Myth
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/09/ipcc-2500-scientists-myth.html

Is there a link between the proposed carbon tax and global warming?
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 33
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 11:37:31 AM
lyingcheat said:


All I was doing, bearing in mind that you had raised the issue of a 'money trail', was pointing out that you'd missed some clues.


Perhaps some work on reading comprehension is in order.

I did not raise the issue. I was obviously responding to EarthPuppy's post:


Please do follow the money on the skeptics motivations and benefits for their funders.


That's why I quoted him. That's why I said:


Of course. But, let's not be fools and hypocrites. Follow the money on BOTH sides of the issue. You alarmists act like you think Jesus himself is funding the pro-global warming machine.



lyingcheat said:


But you hadn't appeared to notice that groups on the other side of the debate can also have such motives ascribed to them, and that likewise therefore their motives may also be suspect.


I noticed. See above. Note "BOTH sides."


lyingcheat said:


...'secret societies' like the Masons, and the 'Illuminati' and their alleged connection to an allegedly ancient secret group called the 'Club of Rome'


Allegedly ancient? Reading comprehension, my friend, reading comprehension. The Club of Rome was founded in 1972, as noted in my earlier post.


lyingcheat said:


Gosh, looks like we're all up shit creek hey?


No way, man. America is thriving - our economy is booming, our Constitution is secure under the beneficent watch of our brilliant leader, our country is at peace, the people are in agreement, and justice prevails. Not only that, but our leaders are working tirelessly to safeguard our sovereignty, refusing to get entangled with globalist organizations like NATO and the UN.


lyingcheat said:


Yes, silly me for being so gullible. Instead of reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming I obviously should have been reading the scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'.


If your conclusion, based on your selective "reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming" is that it is indeed occurring, then yes, you are gullible.

As for "scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'," I have no idea what that means.

RPL
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 34
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 12:51:47 PM
Point is your hacking at branches while the root stays healthy. Global warming as it is proposed by IPCC is not a scientific reality, it is a political ideology.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 35
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 1:25:40 PM

WRONG
"as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect


Haha, what utter twaddle

Firstly clouds have two effects, the first is as often mentioned that they can work as a greenhouse gas to by keeping in heat.

But, and heres where actually engaging your brain kicks in rather than just regurgitated what the church of bogus climatologies last sermon was comes in

Try actually using your own brain to arrive at an origional thought for a moment, imagine the world was 90% covered in clouds. Would it warm or cool?

The answer is it would cool, because althogh clouds at night keep the temperature warmer, and a lack of clouds at night makes it colder the heat that is being affected is heat from the sun that warmed the land during the day

If no heat is actually getting in to begin with theres no heat to be stopped from escaping in the first place, as head isnt "generated" by the land, quite the oppsite infact as energy from the sun is dissipated in a variety of ways including the creation of growth and live in plants

Were the planet totally or even significantly covered in cloud the net effect would be something akin to a nuclear winter rather than massive heating and the clouds themselves can be so effective at stopping the suns energy even entering the planet to begin with that theres little to no heat to stop from escaping

Infact even if you take clouds completely out of the equation another thing claimed to be negatively affecting the climate by many people is man made reflective surfaces reflecting solar radiation straight back into space and not letting the earth absorb it. A thing that dense cloud cover does FAR more effectively


http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm


"Seiji Kato and his associates at the Langley Center of NASA published in 2006 the results of an investigation of the effect of decreasing sea ice in the Arctic on the amount of radiant energy reflected from the Arctic. This study concluded that although there was a decrease in sea ice in recent years there was an increase in cloudiness that more than made up for the loss of albedo from the sea ice. Thus there was not only no ice-albedo positive feedback presumed by climate modelers, there was in fact a negative feedback. Kato's result illustrates the admonition that in climatology every theory has to be checked empirically.

A small change in cloudiness over the rest of the Earth's surface can be far more important than major changes in the area of the ice caps. It is important to keep such things in perspective. Climate modelers have a distinct tendency to focus on a sensational minor topic while neglecting the major topics of climate. Clouds and cloudiness are the major factors in the Earth's climate. Clouds rule the Earth's climate. Everything else, including the atmospheric greenhouse gases, is marginal.

A very interesting and important discovery along these lines was made by Richard Lindzen and his group at M.I.T. They found that in the central Pacific region when the sea surface temperature rises there is less cirrus cloud cover and thus more energy radiates out into space. This thermal vent is a negative feedback in the Earth's climate system and one that is not incorporated in the computer climate models used to project global warming. It is estimated that the mid-Pacific thermal vent would reduce by two thirds the projected global temperature increases. Once again it is a matter of the cloud system ruling the Earth's climate system. For more on this see Mid-Pacific Thermal Vent.

Conclusions

Climate models focus on the effect of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, to the neglect of cloud cover. As shown above this effect is much smaller than that of clouds. Does this mean that the projected temperature change over the next century is larger than the climate models suggest? In principle that would be the case, but the climate models have been tweaked to give plausible projections. For example, the climate models use a rate of increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide which is two and a half times the current rate. There is no justification for this other than to produce scarier projections. The climate models are probably just worthless and should be scrapped. The ones that ventured to provide validation by carrying out backcasts failed miserably. Some people think that because the climate models contain only equations based upon fluid dynamics and thermodynamics that that makes them valid. The climate models are in error from what they have left out rather from what they contain. "


So nah, clouds even armed with just plain old COMMON SENSE have a HUGE negative effect on climate, because without solar radiation reaching the surface to begin with the concept of "global warming" becomes a moot point

A bit like calculating the warming effect of a fire that hasnt actually been plugged in really when you think about it



Water vapour (although quite conveniently treated as being irrelevant by the IPCC as you cant tax people based on how many clouds are over their country) is a far bigger climate driver than absolutely ANY other greenhouse gas

And as I said, can, if following a warm day will keep the earth warmer, but if being constant throughout the day and widely enough spread can stop the planet receiving energy to warm up in the first place

100% cloud cover on the planet and we would quite literally freeze to death

Which is because the sun is actually our core climate driver, not piddly amounts of irrelevant particles is negligibly pityful miniscule quantities

Infact heres a thought

CO2 is 500 parts per million

Look at that logically for a moment

If CO2 was some super duper element that reflected 100% of energey, it would first of all block the same amount of energy coming into the atmosphere as it would blockin what is trying to get out

Unless someone is claiming its magically only shiny on the bottom of course

But also, it would only be physically capable of blocking 0.000.4% of all that energy too (discounting all the CO2 at the poles ofcourse where theres not actually any heat for it to block in the first place

Cloud cover though, that can be more than 50% of the earths surface, so its stopping 50% of the suns energy from reaching the surface with as much as 90% or more efficiency in certain types

So, which do you think has the biggest effect?

Not exactly rocket science really

So,,,,,,, youre wrong
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 36
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 1:32:46 PM
^^^ All of which is basically an argument from personal incredulity. "I don't understand, therefore it's wrong."
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 37
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 1:34:23 PM
Oh yeah, and you said "I" was hedging my bets?

How about nasa? Any better?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810083053.htm

""We're seeing that now," Stephens said. "We just don't know what this will mean for how clouds might change, and for Earth's temperature and climate. Although a small change of clouds--for example, more low clouds--in the right direction would mitigate the effects of increased carbon dioxide, a small change of clouds in a different direction--for example, more high clouds--would amplify the warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide."

Calculating the balance between the cooling or warming effect of clouds and the warming effect of greenhouse gases is a complex problem for researchers, given their current understanding of clouds on Earth. And it's just one of many questions Stephens and fellow scientists are working to address with observations from CloudSat, an experimental satellite built and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. CloudSat's goal is to learn about clouds and their effect on climate by studying them from space.

Floating Facts of Life

Clouds are an inescapable, and necessary, part of life. Aside from making for spectacular sunsets, they also create weather as we know it, from drizzly spring afternoons to the dark, dreary days of winter. "In all ways, shapes and forms, clouds influence life on Earth -- including our climate," says Stephens.

They also play a major role in making Earth habitable. As the sun's rays shine on our planet, flat, low-altitude stratus clouds reflect most of this heat back into space, keeping Earth cool with their shade. At the same time, thin, wide cirrus clouds high in the atmosphere trap heat on Earth's surface, keeping the planet warm. This delicate balance helps to create a comfortable climate, where life flourishes.
"


As I said, they both warm up, and cool down the planet

Not "hedging my bets at all" just stating facts



^^^ All of which is basically an argument from personal incredulity. "I don't understand, therefore it's wrong."


As I have never worked for NASA nor MIT I cant really see how "all" of that is a "personal arguement" at all really


Its just the "science" that doesnt really feature too heavily in the IPCC modelling very much despite being the absolute biggest GHG by far affecting our climate (and not being taxable obviously)


 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 38
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 1:49:38 PM

As I have never worked for NASA nor MIT I cant really see how "all" of that is a "personal arguement" at all really


I didn't say you were taking it personally; I said it's an argument from personal incredulity. YOU don't understand it, therefore YOU think it's wrong. Wow, if you don't understand the subtlety of that, how good do you think you're going to be with the subtleties of scientific insight?


Its just the "science" that doesnt really feature too heavily in the IPCC modelling very much despite being the absolute biggest GHG by far affecting our climate (and not being taxable obviously)


So what are your scientific credentials in physics and climatology? Any?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 39
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 2:05:08 PM
As the excerts I posted show exactly what I had claimed

That not only do clouds contribute to warming, but also cooling (as stated by NASA and MIT rather than me) I'm still trying to see where I "didnt understand" comes into it?

The criticism was that clouds make the climate warmer NOT colder

And that claiming they actually do both was hedging bets

And also implying that water wasnt a far more impactive climate driver than any other greenhouse gas if I recall

All of which are actually shown in the pastes with links provided

So, nope. Maybe I am just being a bit blond here. But still dont quite see where its a "lack of understanding" really
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 2:53:21 PM
Mikewm, what you "didn't understand", and for some reason have failed to grasp despite having this explained several times, is the most fundamental piece of physics concerned with global warming: the greenhouse effect.


If CO2 was some super duper element that reflected 100% of energey, it would first of all block the same amount of energy coming into the atmosphere as it would blockin what is trying to get out

Unless someone is claiming its magically only shiny on the bottom of course


Let's try one more time. Electromagnetic radiation is emitted by the sun at a range of wavelengths. Greenhouse gases (water vapour, CO2, etc.) are transparent to some of these wavelengths (e.g. UV), but not others (e.g. infra-red). The wavelengths that can penetrate through the atmosphere arrive at the earth's surface, are absorbed and re-radiated as infra-red. The infra-red is then trapped by greenhouse gases as they absorb it and re-radiate it in all directions - some of it out into space, and some of it back towards the earth's surface. So yes, in your language, CO2 is 'only shiny on the bottom', and the net effect of greenhouse gases is to warm the planet.

Water vapour, while it is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, is also only resident in the atmosphere for periods of hours to days, whereas CO2 remains in the atmosphere for periods of years to hundreds of years. So CO2 accumulates and causes the climate to warm over time; water vapour is a short-term feedback which enhances the effects of longer term warming.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 3:16:23 PM
Deniers are incapable of accepting negative feedback loops, cummulative impacts of numerous green house gases that humans have been releasing en masse via exosomatic energy consumption, and the great uncertainties about how the global thermostat works in response to multiple assaults.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/north-south-warming-since-last-ice-age-only-now-111024.html

The Earth's climate hasn't changed simultaneously in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres since the last Ice Age, until now that is, said a study published in Climate Research.

"What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective,” said Svante Björck, a researcher at Lund University in Sweden in a press release.

Serious cataclysms are necessary to change the Earth's climate in a short time Björck said. And humans seem to be one of them.

"This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the Earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously," said Björck.

"As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence on the Earth's carbon cycle," said Björck.


More at link...
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 42
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 3:22:27 PM
A few of the points raised I'll concede

But the point with CO2 I'm still hovering on

The pacific is a major thermal vent ejecting heat into space were the effects of greenhouse gases other than water anywhere near as impactive as claimed in the CO2 scaremongering even in totally cloudless areas we would still see greenhouse effects on cloudless nights, rather than extreme cold in nightime deserts

The other end of the clouds influence also was mentioned in the links too, that increased cloud cover due to reflecting most of the suns radiation straight back into space is theorised to be capable of having a higher negative effect on warming than the combined warming effect of all other greenhouse gases thus potentially having a net overall cooling effect and as many theorise being a self regulating mechanism

The 100% cloud cover thing was one of the points I concede fully though on reflection that was a bit insane lol

But although it will obviously go against pro AGW doctrines the fact clouds do have the ability to warm or cool the planet and in prolonged trends climate itself mean that nothing being claimed as though its "fact" about global warming on either side of the equation is anything of the sort because we quite literally dont understand the influence of the most impactive GHG at all and are only now beginning to try and get a better understanding of it

So any model with the majorative climate driver not being understood and not being realistically applied to models as a result of that makes all current models and their claims utterly worthless as the actual result could be either warming or cooling.

Nobody can actually say either way at the moment, they just guess and pretend its known which isnt the same thing at all

Which the NASA statement itself openly admits despite trying to cloud it (Excuse the pun) in a very pro AGW overlay
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 3:38:04 PM
Again..fewer than 10% of climate scientists were pondering and concerned about the "next ice age" back then based on historic cycles, where well over 95% of climate scientists today acknowledge the human impacts on the thin atmosphere via anthropogenic cycling of millions of years of stored carbon. Comparing apples and oranges to discredit the great advances in science in the past 4 decades, the capacity of satellite substantiation, and global communications via observation points. Weak argument at best, dishonest more likely.
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 44
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 4:43:27 PM
No... Al Gore appeared on the scene with money for everyone, that blood drinking fat cat :) Suddenly research funds were available if you would trumpet the carbon tax cause under the guise of global warming. Again I invite you to watch The great Global Warming Swindle Scientists in that documentary ( Honorable ones) set the record straight about the IPCC (The globalist carbon tax club out of the UN ) There is a discussion about Al Gores fraudulent film in there also as well as a comments regarding the polar bears too.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Ice is Melting, the Hurricanes are blowing. and it is all YOUR FAULT!!! SCARED ?Don't Be, Its not True.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647

Mini Carbon Tax Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDUkpE5eGZ8
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 45
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 4:57:40 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but carbon trading was a concept floating out there long Al Gore's movie. Like....a couple of decades, before! Not to mention warnings of global warming and the need to conserve energy.

Just sayin'!
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 46
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 5:02:26 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but carbon trading was a concept floating out there long Al Gore's movie. Like....a couple of decades, before! Not to mention warnings of global warming and the need to conserve energy.


So whats your point? That the totalitarian tip toe really does exist?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 47
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/25/2011 5:07:43 PM

where well over 95% of climate scientists today acknowledge


I would seriously question that figures validity

Over 1000 of the scientists on the IPCC list of concesus for their first report not only asked to be dissassociated with it, but openly and vocally spoke out against its and the IPCCs validty

At best I would guess the list of who is a "climate scientist" is one compiled by someone like the IPCC and if you dont agree with them then youre just not going to make the list

Because there are many sources that would suggest a very different split altogether



Another thought I've just had is this

Lets suppose rather than trying to milk ordinary working people out of every possible penny in already flailing economies the world over the governments decided to approach the problem by taxing IMPORTS instead

So the worse polluting a government was, the more import duty was placed on their products and greener countries had zero or a lower import tax accordingly

This would have a huge impact both directly on countries both by being an instant encouragement for bad polluters to become greener, but the diminished sales and therefore manufacturing would also cut their emissions

Similarly, it would bolster the local ecomony, make local goods more marketable without the cheap imports and would mean lower fuel useage for delivery etc

This and many other similar models that seek to approach the problem from angles other than simply taxing the "peasants" into poverty and subservience could argueably have a much quicker and perhaps even a greater effect. But seem to be wholly overlooked

Cars being another good example, countries could simply refuse outright to let any car with emissions above a certain level to be sold on their soil. This would almost instantly cause a rethink of all car manufacturers. Instead theyre still allowed to make gas guzzlers, but the owners are taxed not just once, but various times from purchase, through road tax and even indirectly through insurance and then again on fuel whilst the manufacturers still get a free pass to produce them

This alone doesnt really help to dispell the view that the entire purpose of the AGW arguement is to do with taxation on a governmental level really

Infact considering we have the facility for teleconferencing and have had for many years the annual total of flown miles by organisations like the IPCCs membership is pretty contradictive of their "committment" and priorities all by itself


So it does seem quite contradictory that despite a lot of noise and panic the only real net effects of AGW are infact making the poor even poorer whilst polluting countries still pollute, their goods are still allowed to be sold on the global market and the rich (who would be the real root cause if AGW was actually real) just keep getting richer and richer by doing pretty much the same things they have been doing all along
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 48
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/26/2011 2:27:53 AM

Perhaps some work on reading comprehension is in order.

Not really, since I only have trouble with garbled and/or nonsensical posts and... well, in those instances it's not my comprehension that causes confusion.
eg;

I'm no apologist for 'The Club of Rome', and I don't really know much about them. I do think the name is unfortunate though, recalling all the conspiracy theories that have been floating about for years involving various 'secret societies' like the Masons, and the 'Illuminati' and their alleged connection to an allegedly ancient secret group called the 'Club of Rome' which is apparently fond of using mystical symbolism and is bent on world domination.

Allegedly ancient? Reading comprehension, my friend, reading comprehension. The Club of Rome was founded in 1972, as noted in my earlier post.

Some say it was actually 1968, but Google 'club of rome secret society' or 'masonic links to the club of rome' or 'kabbalah and the club of rome'. Perhaps then you'll comprehend what I meant by "allegedly ancient".


All I was doing, bearing in mind that you had raised the issue of a 'money trail', was pointing out that you'd missed some clues.

Perhaps some work on reading comprehension is in order.
I did not raise the issue. I was obviously responding to EarthPuppy's post:

You raised the issue in your post immediately following a lengthy quote regarding the Russian IEA. It was that disconnect I pointed to.
Before admonishing others about comprehension perhaps you should give some attention to
the negative effect ignoring context is having on your own comprehension.


Yes, silly me for being so gullible. Instead of reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming I obviously should have been reading the scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'.


If your conclusion, based on your selective "reading up on the pseudo-science of global warming" is that it is indeed occurring, then yes, you are gullible.

As for "scientific facts about 'The Club of Rome'," I have no idea what that means.

I'm not really surprised given your apparent disregard for context.
Would it have helped if I'd written instead -

- NOTE THE CONTEXT OF THIS FOLLOWING SENTENCE - TRY TO KEEP IN MIND THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS -
[irony]Yes, silly me for being so gullible.[/irony]. Instead of reading up on the [irony]pseudo-science of global warming[/irony] I obviously should have been reading the [irony]'scientific facts'[/irony] about The Club of Rome.

In case you've forgotten the context, here are the links I referred to, and helpfully quoted immediately preceding these ^^^ concluding remarks -
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/black.htm
http://www.illuminati-news.com/secret-societies.htm
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/conspir.html
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secretsocietyindex.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret18.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/club_of_rome.htm

All of which I had introduced by saying - "Speaking of not-science, here's a few links to sites that share your suspicions regarding the motives of the 'Club of Rome' and their ambitions regarding 'global government'... "
Yet the 'meaning' of the final sentence still eluded you hey?

But at least you're seeing the issue as slightly more complex than being simply about the USA vs China...

Just look at how distorted and b asturdized the Kyoto accord became...... The worst offender in the world would have essentially been left off scot free, that would be china, and the USA would have been punished...................

If you could pass import duty on countries such as china pro-rata according to their pollution levels, I would be all for it. But then you would still have some that would try to tip the scales against the USA by saying that the import tarrifs should be according to the population levels............... effectivly excusing china.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 49
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/26/2011 4:57:52 AM
Not wanting to divert the topic here, but clinging to a specific secret society as thought its "pivotal" isnt really anywhere near as important as it might seem

There has ALWAYS been secret societies and cabals both amongst private individuals, within government ranks, amongst scientists and within military structures as well as within religions and more recently within medicine and healthcare too

Each with its own agenda that was known to not be widely accepted or liked ideologies, outlooks and mindsets as well as smatterings of like minded individuals all sharing a belief system but without working together nor being organised all working towards similar goals

If you look at the raft of private or created "cabals" we have today what you see is the same people popping up over and over again and having similar interests and aims

So although that specific group the club of rome might genuinely have been created on one of those dates I would bet good money that the people who created and their family dynasties would have already been on several other like minded groups planning towards shared goals and outcomes and that particular one would have simply been a subgrouping that had "extra" ideas that some members of the other groups didnt infact share.

This kind of multi grouping is seen even in politics and finance where the amount of committees and private groups people like****Cheney, Hilary Clinton, the rothschilds, rockerfellers etc sit on either together or in a variety of groupings will be very vast and varied with some being defined by common social goals, some by the domination of a particular market sector or resource, others to do with controlling a particular government or international committee etc

But all the members being from the same initial group of people

These types of groups rare just spring up they tend to be the functional and logical byproducts of various other equally focused groups each with its own specific agenda and purpose and most sharing aspects of that agenda with aspects of various other groups the members are also members of with many people also sitting on groups that to mere mortals would appear to be a conflict of interests infact but if populated by the same key influential people, or different ones that have a shared goal then both sides of an issue can be easily manipulated to either find the most profitable outcome or to find no outcome if that is the option that yeilds the higherst profits and/or the most power and control

So despite that particular "club" only starting then, I daresay with some ardent digging all the members, their family lines or dynasties or their business partners could be tracked back having intersecting memberships in an endless stream of other "clubs" most probably going back centuries bnt with some going back even longer than that
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/26/2011 10:57:19 AM
I really cant believe youre making SOOOO much of a big deal out of the 500ppm and the 0.00004 thing

If I recall the actual figure is somewhere in the 400s, but where exactly I couldnt remember off the top of my head so I rounded up to 500ppm,

In numeric form I stuck with the "4" because the two digits afterwards are a bit irrelevant for the point I was actually trying to make really and as for the shiny on one side comment, that was sarcastic humour, as I know they cant be, but as theyre not an unbroken cloud across the planet, but are such a tiny percentage of the atmosphere as a whole that the majoraty of radiation will manage to completely miss a CO2 molecule on its way out into space

And before you pipe up, I DO realise it WONT be 99.99996% of that radiation as its not a two dimensional mesh

But theres really no need to be "snarky", unless the fact I wasnt wrong about the basic point of clouds being far more important than any other GHG and them having the ability to both cool and heat the planet is still bothering you

Firstly someone doesnt need a qualification to have a view based on reading other peoples papers

And secondly, someone vehemently in support of one side, when it appears at best half the scientists dont agree with the AGW concensus anyway doesnt exactly make a view based on the AGW side of the coin exactly a "correct" stance either

Its just one stance of several
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures