The lunacy has a slightly different flavor on Slashdot:
- well let me inform you, it’s the Climate Research Unit….. they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.
- It’s technically true since what the “warmists” are doing isn’t (and hasn’t been for some time) science in the first place.
Though claims for “man made warming” could actually be true, for cities and airports… Millions spent to “discover” that the Exhaust Gas Temperature being displayed on the engine monitoring panel of the average jet airliner isn’t just there to decorate the cockpit!
Regardless of what you think about climate change, you should reject this particular bad science. The isotopic ratio does not mean what is claimed.
Here is a thought experiment for you: You have a bathtub. The drain is open, the faucet is on. You also have a drip tube putting red colored water into the tub. (This is a vaguely “to scale” stand in for the CO2 in the atmosphere. Large sinks, large sources, tiny human influence.)
You then find that the bathtub is turning red. In fact, almost none of the red dye seems to go down the drain at all! Now consider what that means – does it mean that the drip tube is causing any level changes seen in the water? Obviously, it can’t. If all else was equal, you’d expect the drip tube to be diluted by the ratio between the drip tube and the faucet.
The only explanation is that the drip tube’s dye must not be absorbed. And, in fact, this has been shown to be true. The carbon isotopes being measured have extremely different properties when is comes to atmospheric scrubbing. So the trace isotopes in the “buried” CO2 are not absorbed, and build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that says nothing about the causes of the overall level change.
I will now be modded down because I disclosed a mistake in one of the arguments commonly used in climate change debates, thus confirming the underlying issues in politicizing science. [This one was rated 5! -mt]
- They used two different measuring systems, and diddled the numbers until the graphs overlapped. They used data from measuring stations that were not properly shielded from mundane human activity (I think one was actually near a pub, in Australia?) and whose data could not be normalized using nearby measuring stations. They declined to use proper measuring stations that showed a decline in temperature. And they actively, and conciously, LIED about this.
Carbon good, carbon bad, we don’t know. Possibly it’s not good, probably we should limit our output of it (can’t hurt to be neutral), but to suppose we should spend billions of dollars on fixing a potential non-problem, trusting in what we know to be bad science, that’s just fucking bullshit.
- Who tells you that it is not the other way around? Warmer temperature concludes in more carbondioxide? Sorry. I am not convinced. The whole thing is just too convenient for the big guys. (!!!)
- OK. Your choice. Believe in it. But look it up and compare to CO2 levels 2 thousand or more years ago. They were higher than today and they were lower than today. I don’t see the 3%-5% CO2 addition by humans to have such an effect. The problem here is the money involved. There is a whole economy out there living on the fear of people like yoo who just believe. Imagine Obama saying: “Lets just kill this multimillion dollar, multimillion job economy and move the f*** on.” I don’t see it.
This however is interesting:
And THAT my friend, is indeed the problem. Folks see Goldman Sachs and the other leeches lining up to cash in on “carbon credits” which is the biggest load of horseshit tried to stuff down the people’s throats in decades, and they are sick of it.
If you were simply putting limits and forcing everyone to use less, like in the 70s gas crisis? That would be one thing. But when you have those pushing AGW all set up to become carbon billionaires [telegraph.co.uk] while they fly around in their lear jets telling us we need to change? Well fuck you buddy, we can smell hypocrisy a mile away and we are about knee deep in it now.
If you want folks to get on board AGW? Get rid of the fricking leeches like GS set to cash in on everyone elses misery and assholes like the Al Gore that have quietly set themselves up to make out like fucking robber barons if they manage to get this shit passed. Otherwise expect the repubs to ride this anti AGW wave to a good decade or two of one party rule. There are enough people here sick of Nobama and his flip flops, hell I wouldn’t be surprised if Caribou Barbie ended up the president.
There are some very nice ones in there, too:
Have you noticed that all of the complaints are from IPCC WGII and WGIII? Not like you know the difference, so let me explain. WGI is about the science of climate change. WGII is about impacts, while WGIII is about how to avert it.
In all of its reports, the IPCC is explicitly [www.ipcc.ch] not limited to peer-reviewed materials. They can use, and I quote:
“Peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry“.
(I bolded the last part because you’ll never see the deniers complaining about that, so I thought it deserved particular emphasis!). They can quote peer-reviewed material, governmental material, NGO material, and industry studies. The reason for this is because not everything on the planet is peer-reviewed. Peer-review is for science.
WG1 is almost entirely peer-reviewed. It’s about science, so that’s what you do. WGII is mostly about “news”. While a good chunk of what it mentions is peer reviewed, it does include a number of non-peer-reviewed reports. The same goes with WGIII (which has more of a focus on policy and industry).
Most of the IPCC review effort, likewise, goes into WG1. WGII and WGIII review is much less emphasized. But the real key is that if you find something wrong with WGII or WGIII, you’re not attacking the science of climate change, because those reports aren’t about science. The science is in WGI. And if you find a non-peer-reviewed report anywhere in the IPCC, it is *not* violating its guidelines. WG1 just avoids them.
Sadly, some of the people who know better (Watts, I’m looking at you) love to spread misconceptions about all of this.
You’re so right! I’ll make a deal with you — if I admit that science doesn’t fully understand gravity, will you go jump off a goddam cliff?
Sorry — I ran out of polite the first twenty times I saw this retarded argument for doing fucking nothing
I love the “too convenient for the big guys” one, though. That just cracks me up.
One lesson here lies in the couple of pretty nasty grumbles about cap and trade. It’s very clear that even if cap and trade could be done right so as to provide the carbon benefits, the mere perception that it would benefit the arbitrageurs of Wall Street is enough to make some people hate it, regardless of what the benefits could be. Obama is already seen to be in the pocket of Wall Street, when after all he had to prop up Wall Street or get blamed for a depression. (I think Bernanke was brilliant, but we don’t need more of that now.) It looks to me that America needs tax-and-dividend, with some Republican support. And the world needs America to get a grip.
Without that, we’d better start looking real hard for that magic pixie dust, because 2xCO2 now looks like it’s already in the bag.