What you appear to have done here is picked all the downsloping bits on this plot (as well as mistaking US data for global data):Originally Posted by mememine69
Your best excuse might be that you're so busy bellowing you're unable to think. Fortunately, you're increasingly a relict, except on forums like these.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Global warming is just so much last years wallpaper. Jobs, jobs and jobs far more important now. The agenda has changed fundamentally.
Life lesson for you: problems don't go away just because you're too busy to deal with them.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
IBIS,
mememine69 specifically brings up data from 1996 to 2009 showing clear cooling yet you bring up a graph taking in a segment showing back to 1980 to show an increase. Of course we know there was an increase from 80 because we had cooling from 1940 to 1975.
So taking in the last DECADE. DECADE IBIS. Hear DECADE. You have cooling. A clear decrease in temp since 1998.
Now I mentioned 1940 to 1975 and I said CO2 output from man increased yet temperatures decreased. Your graph proves my theory. CO2 output goes up after 1940 but temperature drops all the way to 1975.
As for the way you dismiss the 90,000 readings by chemical analysis you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
These tests are not blogs or some sort of bull. These are the hard facts that were proven to be accurate to be within 1-3% accuracy. They were performed by the best scientific brains of the past 200 years.
So if a measurement of 420 ppm for CO2 was got in 1940 we can say that is was accurate to + or - 13 ppm. (3%)
So 420ppm - 13ppm = 407ppm. It is still more than todays figure of 380ppm.
There is no crisis in our planet. It is a fraud of a massive scale.
But your credibility IBIS and all your green buddies who feel empowered by saying the words "climate change" are no more than well meaning idiots.
This is a crisis generated by bankers, politicians, accountants, not scientists.
The scientists who push the Climate Change agenda are no more than useful idiots or are paid off with grants for their latest LCMS or FTIR.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK
mememine69's use of the data was extremely partial, as is yours.
In the US, DS - not globally. Over one decade. I shouldn't have to keep saying that the warming isn't uniform in either time or space, but I do. If you like the US data, I also recommend Siberian and Western Australian data:
You seem to have missed the point about sulphate aerosol pollution, which has a cooling effect.
Unfortunately, they're a series of spot measurements of CO2 where industrial chemists happened to be working - in the industrial heartlands. What they're telling you is that atmospheric CO2 just down from t'factory in industrial Lancashire was pretty high. They're no more global data than a US-local trend.
Well, I'll be very pleased if you're right. I make no money out of climate change, and would much prefer eating humble pie to watching the planet go down the crapper.
There's the little difficulty with me believing your thesis. I've pointed out before that I've been following this field of science for 25 years, and that it had been going on for maybe 15 years before that. At the time, there wasn't any money in it, yet the research pointed the same way it does now.
Most of the "controversy" has come about since the science emerged into the public debate - in fact, a while after, once the oil and coal companies had got their acts together. Now, I know that climate change is no more controversial within the oil industry than peak oil, but still companies like ExxonMobil fund 'skeptical' researchers and PR - because, for them, this is essentially a marketing exercise.
Even in terms of claiming a conspiracy, yours is just hand-waving (again), whereas the actions of ExxonMobil and others to protect their markets from being undercut by climate change concerns are well documented.
So, on my side, I have a 25-year personal view of the science, an insider's view of the geological industries, detailed science, and detailed histories of the PR activities of the geological industries to protect their markets. I have a simple "follow the money" trail - the oil and coal industries didn't want their customers to reduce consumption, any more than the tobacco or asbestos industries did, and a relatively obvious well-funded small number of researchers 'standing against the consensus'. It is a conspiracy that involves a small number of boardrooms and a handful of research teams.
On your side, you have a claimed conspiracy of millions of scientists at institutions scattered across the planet and funded by everyone from governments to charities (and all of whom are amazingly good at keeping it quiet, despite the levels of coordination that would be required), aided and abetted by world governments who up to a decade ago denied the whole thing. No extra taxes have been imposed, despite that being the claimed "money trail". No extra controls have been imposed in the name of climate change on a citizenry that has lapped up controls introduced to "save them from terrorism". At worst, you may have been made to feel a little guilty for driving an SUV. You have no real science - just a bunch of little holes and flaws people claim were found here or there - and when they are found not to be holes, they are quietly dropped, and we move onto the next one.
Only one of these narratives follows the classic narrative of denialism - just like Creationism, denial of the tobacco-cancer link, denial of problems with asbestos, acid rain, the ozone hole - and it's yours. Like all of those, you're slowly losing, because the facts are against you, and even the politicians can smell the coffee (not that they're doing much that's useful, because they don't really want to upset anybody).
Enjoy your last hurrah, lads. I'd salute you as worthy adversaries, but frankly if you weren't able to take advantage of real ignorance and inertia, and you weren't useful tools to the marketing department at ExxonMobil, you'd still be telling it to your dogs.
Last edited by ibis; 16th February 2009 at 09:11 PM.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
where is your data to prove your conspiracy theory?
The whole global warming things has all the elements of a religion, including some truth.
But mainly unprovable negatives.
Of course the planet warms up, cools down, freezes, floods, melts, is affected by life on it. Its messy get over it. We are a muddy snow balls flying around a nuclear explosion.
Anyway the weather here is pretty bad and I will on a substantial hill so I will take my chances. It might get better.
All these maps and graphs are nonsense
Agreed. The only graph I want to see is the graph showing climate change over the past 4,540,000,000 years. Lets then see where the past 200 years fits in to the overall scheme of things.Ibis if you can grab us that graph from Google Images it would be great thanks.
On a sidenote, the climate seems alright considering we've been hit by some pretty devastating meteors, and come through a few ice ages. . .
Anyway, my whole point throughout this thread was that the taxes and spending required to "combat" climate change is ethically unjustifiable, that's all. Don't forget that people are more than free to voluntarily invest whatever savings they have into "green" research and "green" technologies... if people aren't doing it on a large scale it's because obviously the majority of people either don't have the money for it, they don't value it high enough, or they simply don't believe in it.
do you support using taxes for all the current non-climate change mitigating activities/research?
Also, i think you'll find that globally people don't have money to invest in new technologies and businesses, end of story.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
