Climategate

It's all big business, that's why. I mean, really, look at all the "green" products out on the market. Some no "greener" than what it's supposed to be replacing.
 
water has a refractive index of 72, CO2 has a refractive index of 36...

the refractive index is what determines how "strong" of a GHG something is.

now, these car manufacturers want to replace cars that emit CO2 with cars that emit water vapor instead...

which means they want to put out cars meant to release more "dangerous" than fossil fuel cars.


there have been CO2 levels recorded as high as 7,000 PPM, and 380 PPM for CO2 is an alarm why???


there have been recorded temps much higher than what we have now, even higher than the mideval warm period.

here is the problem... the more data you look at, the less of a correlation there is between CO2 and temperature. unless you look at data from 1975+ only.

if you include data from before 1975, and even go back hundreds of thousands to even millions of years back, it becomes impossible to demonstrate a correlation to CO2 and global average temperature.
 
TheWesDude said:
water has a refractive index of 72, CO2 has a refractive index of 36...

the refractive index is what determines how "strong" of a GHG something is.

now, these car manufacturers want to replace cars that emit CO2 with cars that emit water vapor instead...

which means they want to put out cars meant to release more "dangerous" than fossil fuel cars.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem. Water vapor and water in general is constantly and quickly released and re-admitted in the environmental system. CO2 isn't, it is 'stored' long-term in plants and through fossilization.

TheWesDude said:
there have been CO2 levels recorded as high as 7,000 PPM, and 380 PPM for CO2 is an alarm why???
Click to expand...
So, what numbers does this refer to? When was the '7,000 PPM' level recorded, in what context did it happen? Was it local, or global? What does the 380PPM number refer to? Was that local, or global? Is either of those numbers referring to sustained growth?

Just throwing out random numbers doesn't work, for either side. It may sound fun, but it's not actually convincing.

TheWesDude said:
there have been recorded temps much higher than what we have now, even higher than the mideval warm period.

here is the problem... the more data you look at, the less of a correlation there is between CO2 and temperature. unless you look at data from 1975+ only.

if you include data from before 1975, and even go back hundreds of thousands to even millions of years back, it becomes impossible to demonstrate a correlation to CO2 and global average temperature.
Click to expand...
How do we get good temperature data from millions of years back?

Regardless, whether or not it has been warmer before isn't relevant. What is relevant is the effect this would have in the current world. Was it warmer in medieval periods? I don't know. But if it was, what was the effect of that? That warming happens naturally doesn't mean that human activities can't exacerbate it (and frankly, the idea that nature always retores the balance seems ludicrous given the huge impact human presence has made on the environment. If nature 'restores the balance', it might just do so through eradicating humanity), and it might mean that human activities will cause a much longer and more sustained warming than naturally occurs. I don't know this, but none of the counter-arguments ever discuss something like that.

And for the love of god, please cite your numbers. That way anyone can actually check the context and actual meaning of the numbers.

Also, the focus on CO2 is burning the global warming debate. Everyone treats CO2 as the be-all end-all of global warming, while it isn't, at all. Which is why focusing on trying to disprove the factor of CO2 in global warming doesn't work: there's more to global warming than just that.
 
Sander said:
Zeal said:
I cant believe no1 here is talking about the new scandal. Climategate.

I understand we need to get free from midle east oil, but why cant polititians just tell it like it is, why the need of these conspiracies...

Nothing new, just more proof:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Click to expand...
All this proves is that the debate on global warming is tainted. It proves nothing whatsoever about the validity of the theory.
Click to expand...

Why not, because u say so?

If the leading "scientific" research center on the subject needs to create and manipulate data, what does that tell u?...

It doesnt take a scientist to know...

Its not like we need to silence scientists, hide data, or make tricks for the laws of Newton...

Plus, if there are still other 3 science research centers that came to the same conclusion, we have two possible scenarios:

1st, they used "other/real" data, then where is that data?

2nd, their approach is exactly the same...


edit: the real shame is another taint in the scientific community, which is great in this already everyday more "spiritual" world, and there are REAl ecological problems, like the lack of drinking water, the deforestation of Earth, and the increase in general trash...

And i even support the ends of the "ANTHROPOGENIC (this is the real issue here) global warming", the end of oil slavery..

Edit 2: u want numbers, no surface heat rising since 1998...
 
Zeal said:
Why not, because u say so?

If the leading "scientific" research center on the subject needs to create and manipulate data, what does that tell u?...
Click to expand...
Why don't 'u' tell me?

Look, this proves that some scientists feel it is necessary to prove global warming more conclusively than they can, and that they feel the need to manipulate data to that end. This says absolutely nothing about the actual theory, it does say something about the way certain scientists go about their business. It might also be interpreted as to show that the scientists feel that global warming is a very real threat, but they also feel that they cannot get their point across strongly enough with the real data.

As I said, it proves that the current scientific atmosphere isn't conducive for a healthy scientific debate on global warming. What it does not prove is that global warming doesn't exist.

Zeal said:
1st, they used "other/real" data, then where is that data?
Click to expand...
So what would make you think that data doesn't exist? I don't know, I haven't looked at the data, but scientists go about their business by citing their sources. Why aren't you looking at what those other research centers are citing?

Zeal said:
Edit 2: u want numbers, no surface heat rising since 1998...
Click to expand...
No, I want citations and sources and context. 'no surface heat rising since 1998' is a vague statement that lacks specifics and applicability.
 
:roll:

Personally, I think this is blown out of proportion. It's not like scientists are robots, and as any group of individuals, won't suffer any political in fighting and people accusing each other of doing something they are not.

And global warming, whether man made or naturally occurring, anyone that doesn't believe that all the CO2 doesn't accelerate that process should probably visit Beijing and check out what pollution do. Seriously, go live in Beijing for a while and tell me pollution doesn't do anything to the climate or affect people.

One point of view that isn't popular because most of the people who are into carbon reduction don't want to believe it, is the fact that probably nothing we do now will change the fact that weather patterns are already changing. We should focus on adapting. Personally, I am more worried about food production/prices and plastics. Fish stocks are declining, and there are studies that says California might get too warm to supply the continental North America with the majority of vegetables. Water is another major issue. A lot of glaciers are melting and we might lose a lot of sources of fresh water. India is on board right now because their largest source of fresh water is melting faster than it can replace itself.

Reducing carbon foot prints sound nice and noble and probably makes people feel good that they are doing something to "save" the planet. I am not saying you shouldn't do it, but if you really want to do something, you are probably better off by making less trash, cook more at home, and consume less. But that's just crazy talk! We should consume our way out of this recession now! :P
 
TheWesDude said:
now, these car manufacturers want to replace cars that emit CO2 with cars that emit water vapor instead...
Click to expand...
Cars already emit water vapor and what car companies want is to replace oil-based combustion with something else with similarly large amounts of required maintenance. Electric vehicles can serve most of the population's daily travel requirement needs, are cheaper to maintain, and last longer. That said, they are only as clean as the power source that feeds them.

For those folks claiming that this debunks global warming, do some more reading and for some really clear evidence, look into the Azolla event.
 
Sander said:
No, I want citations and sources and context. 'no surface heat rising since 1998' is a vague statement that lacks specifics and applicability.
Click to expand...

Ok here is a good work made in 2005 (the emails do not debunk "anthropogenic global warming" since 1st it was never proved - no matter how many times "anti-americans that love al gore" say its happening, 2nd independent scientists all over the world have been trying to stop that theory to be presented as fact since at best it is at its early stage from the beggining), take a closer look at chapter 2. many graphics with sources ^^.

http://web.letras.up.pt/asaraujo/Trabalhos/Sea level changes.pdf


Edit: Science and secular thinking is our only hope of salvation against.. well, humanity? It really pisses me off when political interests use its name, tainting it. If the scientists cant prove something, manipulating data or public opinion should be the last thing they should do, since it stops being SCIENCE there...

Edit 2: http://vimeo.com/8023097 lenghty video but a good one.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
Electric vehicles can serve most of the population's daily travel requirement needs, are cheaper to maintain, and last longer. That said, they are only as clean as the power source that feeds them.
Click to expand...
I realize that a hybrid vehicle is not exactly an electric vehicle, but a Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it. "The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers."

I would like to get a horse someday.
 
Sander said:
TheWesDude said:
water has a refractive index of 72, CO2 has a refractive index of 36...

the refractive index is what determines how "strong" of a GHG something is.

now, these car manufacturers want to replace cars that emit CO2 with cars that emit water vapor instead...

which means they want to put out cars meant to release more "dangerous" than fossil fuel cars.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem. Water vapor and water in general is constantly and quickly released and re-admitted in the environmental system. CO2 isn't, it is 'stored' long-term in plants and through fossilization.
Click to expand...

I'm actually amazed at how rarely people take this into account.

Ozrat said:
UncannyGarlic said:
Electric vehicles can serve most of the population's daily travel requirement needs, are cheaper to maintain, and last longer. That said, they are only as clean as the power source that feeds them.
Click to expand...
I realize that a hybrid vehicle is not exactly an electric vehicle, but a Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50 percent less combined energy doing it. "The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers."
Click to expand...

I allways had a feeling that it would be cheaper and less pollutive to maintain older cars, rather than spending shitloads of (rare) resources on making these new "green" cars.

I would like to get a horse someday.
Click to expand...

Me too. And you could ride it while drunk too.
 
Reading through excerpts from those e-mails gives me the impression they're completely fake. They are as outrageous as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are, as every sane person knows, a forgery made by Tsarist Ochrana against the Jews.

I like how people who trash the scientists in question are pretty much saying "they're wrong, so I can ruin the envronment as much as I want now".

Pathetic.
 
Tagaziel said:
Reading through excerpts from those e-mails gives me the impression they're completely fake. They are as outrageous as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are, as every sane person knows, a forgery made by Tsarist Ochrana against the Jews.

I like how people who trash the scientists in question are pretty much saying "they're wrong, so I can ruin the envronment as much as I want now".

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Err.. the veracity has never been post in cause, not even by the authors... it amazes me how a moderator can compare those subjects and then leaps to such an conclusion, unless u are being satirical and i just missed it...

Its funny how real ecological problems are completely missed, like the lack of drinking water, since this "anthrophogenic global warming". It looks like there is no other problem with Earth nowdays. Where are the ecologists? Its kinda similar with the "where are the feminists?" problem regarding islamic treatment of women! Now thats a comparison! :D
 
Zeal said:
Err.. the veracity has never been post in cause, not even by the authors... it amazes me how a moderator can compare those subjects and then leaps to such an conclusion, unless u are being satirical and i just missed it...
Click to expand...

They might be real, but the context in which they are presented makes them completely fake, misrepresentative elements of a massive smear campaign against people researching global warming.

As someone said, "what's not seen is most interesting". All I see floating around are quotes and excerpts from the e-mails, curiously, identical pretty much across the board.

If the truth was so horrifying, why aren't entire e-mails and documents posted?

Oh, that's right, that's because they don't undermine the global warming research when quoted as a whole.

Its funny how real ecological problems are completely missed, like the lack of drinking water, since this "anthrophogenic global warming". It looks like there is no other problem with Earth nowdays. Where are the ecologists? Its kinda similar with the "where are the feminists?" problem regarding islamic treatment of women! Now thats a comparison! :D
Click to expand...

What a tool.

Have "u" done any research in the matter? At all?
 
I think the discussion is quite dangerous and to some point even irrelevant.

It isnt important if the global warming is true or not and caused by humans or not.

Fact is that we have to change our society and life vastly cause we cant afford to continue the way did the last 150 years. Not as long we still create places like this

Polluted Places Named


I find this "is global warming true or not" discussions very tiresome cause for the real issue you dont need to be a scientist and many of this discussions actualy move away from any real change. Everyone with half a brain can see that we do a lot of damage to the invorment what ever if its now global warming or not and that what our industry and humanity as whole is doing cant be good in the long run. Polution has to stop in general. Not just CO2 or something.
 
Kahgan,

nobody is denying that CO2 gets absorbed by plants and the water and held there, but we are nowhere near what history says we have had. per ice cores and other methods, they have determined that 100 million years ago we had over 1,000 PPM of CO2. and the highest was either nearly or over 7,000. 380 ( todays global atmospheric average ) is nowhere near what has happened without humans.

figuring for historical average, we should be upwards of 2,000 PPM of CO2 if you want to conform to historical average.
 
TheWesDude said:
nobody is denying that CO2 gets absorbed by plants and the water and held there, but we are nowhere near what history says we have had. per ice cores and other methods, they have determined that 100 million years ago we had over 1,000 PPM of CO2. and the highest was either nearly or over 7,000. 380 ( todays global atmospheric average ) is nowhere near what has happened without humans.
Click to expand...

I'm very curious to know what you think this proves. If you think it proves "humans have no effect on the amount of CO² in the atmosphere" or even "human impact on said amount is negligible" then sorry, but that's not how numbers work.

And why you're addressing that post to Kahgan is definitely beyond me.
 
Tagaziel said:
Zeal said:
Err.. the veracity has never been post in cause, not even by the authors... it amazes me how a moderator can compare those subjects and then leaps to such an conclusion, unless u are being satirical and i just missed it...
Click to expand...

They might be real, but the context in which they are presented makes them completely fake, misrepresentative elements of a massive smear campaign against people researching global warming.

As someone said, "what's not seen is most interesting". All I see floating around are quotes and excerpts from the e-mails, curiously, identical pretty much across the board.

If the truth was so horrifying, why aren't entire e-mails and documents posted?

Oh, that's right, that's because they don't undermine the global warming research when quoted as a whole.

Its funny how real ecological problems are completely missed, like the lack of drinking water, since this "anthrophogenic global warming". It looks like there is no other problem with Earth nowdays. Where are the ecologists? Its kinda similar with the "where are the feminists?" problem regarding islamic treatment of women! Now thats a comparison! :D
Click to expand...

What a tool.

Have "u" done any research in the matter? At all?
Click to expand...

But the problem is that the emails are nothing more than a "last confirmation by the culpripts own hand". its a confession per se, the evidence was there way before the leaked e-mails, there was no "new" information on them, just a confirmation of what the independent scientists all over the world have been saying.

Plus the whole issue here is a theory (at best) being presented like ultimate fact and billions being spent and lifes being changed due to the pressupost its true, its a fact, which isnt...

Yes, we need new alternative energy sources, yes we need to change our way of life in overrall, but nothing to do with "anthrophogenic global warming"...

Why am i a tool? Are you saying there arent real issues that could be adressed now, that implicate millions of people that could be saved in our lifetime, for sure, no hypothetical controversial, or anything like that, "rescue"...

I guess the worst blind is the one that doesnt wants to see...


Edit: hmm it came to attention people are making fun of the abreviation "u"? Why do U find it so offensive? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top