As usual, RM doesn't see the hypocrisy of her own position. Quite typical. She started off OK. Yes - it is very true that focusing on OUTLIERS does not make those outliers normal. A few videos of rare full-court buzzer beaters doesn't mean that full-court buzzer beaters are normal. They are outliers. Well observed.

Where she loses it is in her classification of AGW as 'normal' and the snow in Washington as 'not disproving AGW'. The AGW movement has been defrocked in the past months. What I've known for YEARS has become relatively common knowledge. The so-called 'scientists' were rigging the data. They ignored contrary opinions. They buried contradictions in their own research. They used articles from laymen and called them 'experts'. They took articles from journalists, and called them 'scientists'.

In short - it is the AGW movement that has been trying to portray the outliers as 'normal'. They are taking the most extreme, far-fetched, and outlandish projections they can possibly distill from their faulty data. Then they have allowed politically motivated interest groups to falsely portray these unrealistic outliers as 'normal' or 'accurate' when in fact they are the opposite.

So who are the people that are trying to make the buzzer-beaters look like normal events? From where I sit as a professional analyst and statistician, it is the Global Warmers who are the ones exaggerating their case. Their AGW movement is political - not science. They want taxes and massive government spending, and they are wresting science to do it.

^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.

Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.

Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.

Global warming is one thing, but the Carbon Credits is a fucking scam.

Penn & Teller couldn't say that global warming was bullshit, they might like to, but they couldn't. However they did call the Carbon Credit scams bullshit. Honestly, I have a hard time accepting the science that is pushing people to pay to clear their consciences while not actually doing anything to help.

All of these carbon sanctions are excellent right? Until the third world countries cannot industrialize and are forced by UN mandate to stay third world. What is the carbon footprint left by manufacturing several thousand solar panels; as it turns out very low. But does it pay for itself? Not if you consume shit-loads of energy.

I don't know if anything came of the whole COP15 Kyoto Protocol ammendment, but that is besides the point. I am explicitly opposed to any sort of rubbish such as this Al Gore founded carbon forgiveness bullshit. Science is one thing, warming has happened, I would argue on par with peak oil; but making a profit off of the stupidity of gullible people is fucking dastardly. It gives skeptics and nay-sayers more reason to froth at the mouth.

http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/hell-breaks-loose-at-cop15-ambitious-legal-treaty-now/

But hey, what does Stanhope say about it? There's only one way to save the world, condoms and sodomy.



Carbon Credit Scams Articles:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12314

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/04/police-hunt-carbon-trading-fraudsters

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/business/05online.html

<sigh>
Let the flame wars begin
</sigh>

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Why would anyone prefer your anonymous, overtly partisan opinion over decades of research and peer review from thousands of non-partisan scientists who do this for a living? If you want to change the opinion of the pro-science crowd, you need to first change scientific consensus, so get to work.
Alternately, you could look at where your information comes from (corporate think tanks, conservative blogs, public relations firms) and try and figure what ulterior motives they might have for opposing this single, specific aspect of science.
Pro tip: The people who tell you what to think may not have your best interests at heart.


In short what I think he is saying; follow the money.

If the money comes from charitable organizations and not corporations then the science may not be politicized.

I don't get global warming. I can't separate the truth from the lies in this case. It seems to me it was just a few months ago that someone obtained all kinds of documents to show that the scientists leading the charge to deal with global we're actually forging lots of their evidence. Litterally. Isn't that what happened?

There were scandalous memos detailing how to trick journalists and science magazines and so on.

Then, I didn't hear much more about that. I didn't hear their defense. I didn't hear anyone's outrage at the lies etc.

Wtf happened with that?

Also, I've heard others say what Winston said about the scientists lying about global warming to keep their jobs. Sounds likely to me. Their GLOBAL WARMING scientists if global warming was proven untrue tomorrow they'd have no job. Seems like motivation to lie.

EDIT: I like Rachel Maddow as a journalist. I don't understand why she doesn't ask Bill Nye about the fraudulent global warming documents that were released. Has she confronted them in another video?

The theory is called Climate change not temperature change, cased closed, no long winded ideologies, no evil democrats, or republicans.

"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.

Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?

There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!

Here's a good place to start and understand the concept of Climate Change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Bill Nye is wrong!
Wrong!
Wrong!
Wrong!
Wrong!
Wrong!


It's Cypress Mountain, not Mount Cypress!

He's right about the whole climate change thing though.

I don't get global warming.

In order to 'get' this discussion you need to seperate out two completely different components. ONE: The science of climate change. TWO: The politics of 'man-made' global warming (AKA anthropogenic global warming or AGW).

ONE: THE SCIENCE
The science of climate change is undecided. Scientists create models to predict climates change. However, to date all such models are unsuccessful. There is no current valid mathematical model that serves as a platform for predicting climate change. Some models are rigorous, others are 'loose'. Some weight XYZ variables, and others focus on ABC. But anyone who claims to be able to predict temperatures, hurricanes, or the other components of global climate is full of crap. There is no 'consensus'. Real scientists would not dare to say 'the science is settled' because they are still collecting data.

As of this time the science can only tell us that there are 'variables' that effect the climate. However, science has not yet determined if the variables are causal or predictive. EG - they know atmospheric C02 is involved in the equation but they do not know whether C02 causes climate change or whether its alterations are caused by the climate changes. Science is still up in the air on the topic - no pun intended.

TWO: THE POLITICS
The AGW movement is not 'science'; it is pure agenda politics. There are lots of groups that desire to reduce human activity, for whatever reason. Some want to reduce ALL human activity. Some want to reduce a specific area. Others focus on overpopulation. Others are anti-capitalist. Whatever. The one thing in common is a generalized desire to reduce human activity on some scale or other.

The political label this movement co-opted is "AGW". They took AGW C02 (one variable out of dozens) and artificially weighted it. They dangled tons of grant money in front of sympathetic scientists, universities, labs, and clinics. They shut out dissent. They falsified data. They hid methodology. They pretended anecdotes were 'experts'. They threw way primary data. They clammed thier pieholes shut when their conclusions were wildly exaggerated. In the kindest interpretation, AGW has been proven to be no more than a very rudimentary hypothesis. In laymans terms, AGW C02 as a cause of 'climate change' is bunk.

The scientific claims are easily refuted because they are just about 100% wrong every time they say anything. Global warming causes hurricanes to be bigger and more powerful... ...eeeexcept that hurricanes became less frequent and weaker. Global warming is causing rising temperatures... ...eeeexcept that temperatures have been falling for 10 years and there's 7 feet of snow in DC. Human C02 will melt glaciars... ...eeeexcept the glaciers are actually getting thicker. You pick the topic. The 'science' predictions of the Warmers have been dead wrong every time.

Realizing that they have lost credibility when examined with real scientific rigor (or even with plain common sense) the Warmers simply moved their target. "Global Warming" not working? Well - just call it climate change. Since the climate always changes, ANY weather (good, bad, whatever) is "proof that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet". How rhetorically convenient.

But since the real objective is POLITICAL and not environmental, it doesn't really matter. If they can get enough gullible people to just pretend the Emperor has clothes long enough then they could still achieve the political goal - science be damned. They don't care that they've made the scientific community a laughing stock as long as they could get the IPCC to use East Anglia's bogus conclusions to try and sucker people at Carbonhagen.

So keep the divide in this issue clearly in mind. There is the 'science' side which is still undecided. Then there is the 'politics' side which is more like a religion that has the reduction of human activity as its Nicene Creed. That's all you need to know to look at any news story on this issue and arrive at a clear conclusion as to what its 'angle' is.

>> ^Matthu:
It seems to me it was just a few months ago that someone obtained all kinds of documents to show that the scientists leading the charge to deal with global we're actually forging lots of their evidence. Litterally. Isn't that what happened?


No, actually it's not, with over 200,000 e-mails to comb through the few snippets that made it to the news were all they could come up with.

One referred to a 'trick' of manipulating data in a specific way. Well it turns out that 'trick' in scientific parlance does not mean 'to fool someone' it's just slang for 'technique'.

The other snippet they found was equally non-damning when put in context.

To summarize, after breaking into hundreds of thousands of e-mails and combing through them for something to hurt the climate change scientists the only two snippets they found sounded bad out of context but were perfectly innocuous if read in the larger context.

Since when is Bill Nye a Scientist? I thought he was a comedian from Seattle who developed a cool "Science Guy" persona and schtick.

edit: Okay, according to Wikipedia he has a degree in mechanical engineering, and developed some key components used to this day in aeronautics. All respect to the guy- I love what he does and his ability to communicate scientific concepts to young people is fantastic, but those accomplishments don't make him a scientist.

WP, can you provide some links to the data of which you speak? Most of the anti-AGW sources I've seen have been heavily slanted towards false premises and illogical correlations. I'm always open to evidence-based arguments against the accepted norm, but I want to see if their evidence is valid at the very least.

There is also a lot of slanted stuff on the pro-AGW side of course... people with more opinions than understanding. Having confidence in a conclusion isn't the same as understanding the calculations behind it. Neither side should get away with baseless claims.

So WP, throw some links our way. You present yourself as a highly knowledgeable individual on this subject, so I'm eager to see the basis of your arguments here.

Pennypacker you're just a bunch of hot air

- Somehow in your head you equate angry conviction with irrefutable truth

.... but there's nothing there.

Just for fun have you ever tried to prove each of your assertions with objective proof or is this all we can ever expect of you?

>> ^Matthu:
I don't get global warming. I can't separate the truth from the lies in this case. It seems to me it was just a few months ago that someone obtained all kinds of documents to show that the scientists leading the charge to deal with global we're actually forging lots of their evidence. Litterally. Isn't that what happened?



Nope, only in the twisted imaginations of Fox News

There were scandalous memos detailing how to trick journalists and science magazines and so on.
Then, I didn't hear much more about that. I didn't hear their defense. I didn't hear anyone's outrage at the lies etc.
Wtf happened with that?


Those attacking the memos, calling them scandalous, were lying. People who actually looked at the emails themselves found that claims of fudging evidence was completely unfounded. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Also, I've heard others say what Winston said about the scientists lying about global warming to keep their jobs. Sounds likely to me. Their GLOBAL WARMING scientists if global warming was proven untrue tomorrow they'd have no job. Seems like motivation to lie.


Stop going to Rush Linbaugh and Fox News for your "news". If you really follow the money there are billions of dollars spent by the oil and gas industry paid to ad agencies, think tanks, lobbyists, etc. The climate scientists salaries pale in comparison.

If you want the real news http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

Here's a thorough debunking of many of the claims about how all the stolen emails disprove climate change.

Wikipedia's article on the incident is here. Note that it's marked controversial, so be sure to check the sources. I believe that at least some of the allegations are still under investigation.

Also note that there's no such thing as a "global warming scientist"; there's climatologists. These people study the climate regardless of its conditions. Few, if any, would be out of a job if climate change suddenly didn't need any more research. There's still hundreds of other facets of weather and climate to be studied and few, if any, of these climatologists work exclusively on "global warming".

>> ^Matthu:
I don't get global warming. I can't separate the truth from the lies in this case. It seems to me it was just a few months ago that someone obtained all kinds of documents to show that the scientists leading the charge to deal with global we're actually forging lots of their evidence. Litterally. Isn't that what happened?
There were scandalous memos detailing how to trick journalists and science magazines and so on.
Then, I didn't hear much more about that. I didn't hear their defense. I didn't hear anyone's outrage at the lies etc.
Wtf happened with that?
Also, I've heard others say what Winston said about the scientists lying about global warming to keep their jobs. Sounds likely to me. Their GLOBAL WARMING scientists if global warming was proven untrue tomorrow they'd have no job. Seems like motivation to lie.

how is this "al gores theory"?
oh and theres no snow in vancouver, but texas got 8 fucking inches today.

Actually, alot of the Climatalogists hold goverment and tenure with academic institutions. Ever tried firing or removing someone from a goverment job, because of a change in the wind? (yeah, pun intended) A professor with tenure gives them more freedom to study and explain in their field. Now, those scientists that work for gas & oil companies, WILL, get fired if they say something that is NOT in the company's best interests. Its kinda of like the medical doctors that worked for tobacco companies in the 40-70's. They KNEW, smoking was bad, and how bad it was in every detail, and yet, they hide that fact.

So, if you wish to really know whether or not 'climate change' is taking place, and at what rate; you'll just have to get off your butt and go study the subject in-depth. You will need to hold an open mind to being proved wrong (whether your for or against the arguement).

Yes, some scientists say 'Global Warming' is not taking place. The vast majority of scientists seem to agree that it is taking place. Scientists argue things and for reasons very different then most of you. Which is why, you should learn the method by which they argue to gain a better understanding of the subject matter.

Somebody around here said that the global temperatures were actually going down over the past decade. How exactly does that jive with NASA's report that the past decade was the hottest on record?

“There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated." - James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Ya know what? When scientists say that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, I avoid smoking. When scientists say that greenhouse gasses increase the risk of global climate change that could cause the extermination of the human species, I avoid creating greenhouse gasses.

As far as I'm concerned, Global Climate Destabilization is about as contested as Evolution. The only people speaking out about it are the nutbars that would say anything to keep the argument going.

On the other hand, if you want to debate what to do about it, that's entirely different. I've heard some pretty bad things about Cap and Trade. We need to keep that discussion going until we can be reasonably sure our chosen course will help (or hurt) everybody on fairly equitable terms.

This whole discussion is why I instantly think climate change is a device to keep people fighting and arguing.

For fucks say, what is the real truth? Is there any; besides what the plutocrats tell us on the magic boxes we stare at all day?

You would think Climate Change is the new god damned religion of the sentry. Well fuck you, I remain skeptical because I will always disbelieve something that a lot of people believe; like god, and that a cake is a lie. I know Evolution is fact, because I could prove it for myself. I know climate change has something to do with the evolution of the human species and the only branch of the Homo Genus to industrialize the earth; but how does that compare with volcanoes, forest fires, and decomposition of flora?

For fucks sake every one needs to chill the fuck out, science is approximate not exact and if it were we would not be here arguing about it.

Someone post all of the studies they can find on climate change to this thread. Don't cherry pick em; break them up into sections; if it's a white paper then post it.

Then let people read them for themselves. Don't think that the scientific community is not without corruption, every community in the world has some semblance of corruption.


Climate Change is the new Fad didn't you know? Every one is wearing the T-Shirt.

Here are some articles and white papers to get us started. I've not read any of these to cherry pick them, I've simply picked them from Google. I read the first para to make sure they were relevant. Just searching for white papers alone is difficult. I had to sift threw carbon guilt bullshit, op ed pieces about a professor who took part in a study, and other stupid shit.

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

Why and how do scientists study climate change in the Arctic? What are the Arctic climate indices?

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible


Here is a link to the study that Doug Stanhope's bit was referencing:

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis

Here is the section that was highlighted on Stanhope's bit:

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I know Evolution is fact, because I could prove it for myself.

What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.

For me this is always the basis of AGW. What happens beyond this in the climate is extremely complicated and nearly impossible to predict. But in general it does not look too good for humanity. Sure, we can adapt, but it will cost a lot of money/lives.

Links? Evidence?

Sure - but I'm not interested in playing duelling banjos. I'm listing a few of many. I could go on, but doing so ultimately becomes pointless. Science is science, and the current science is not decided. However, if you have made up your mind POLITICALLY where you stand then no amount of fact or evidence will be useful. But here we go. Here is the IPCC working group 1 report itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

Here is the section detailing the models they selected to write their conclusions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-2.html

Here are some links detailing just some the problems with their models.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
http://www.applet-magic.com/IPCCmistakes.htm
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/59296-ipcc-climate-models-8-fatal-errors.html
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?page_id=11
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Being a statistician myself, I am fascinated by the process by which other analysts arrive at a methodology. The IPCC report is sloppy at best, and it doesn’t take any advanced statistical analysis to dismiss the conclusions prima facie. The IPCC freely admits that it ignored critical variables, and arrived at specious conclusions.

Keep in mind the “two divisions” I talked about. On the one hand we have “science of climate” and on the other hand we have “politics of man-made C02”. Warmers like to refer to science as justification for politics. This allows them to have their rhetorical cake and eat it too.

No one disagrees with the posit that the climate is “changing”. Duh! The climate always changes. We figure that out a few millennium ago. But that isn’t what the Warmer movement is trying to say. The Warmers say, “Science has PROVEN that human behavior is the cause of climate change – and human behavior can stop it.”

Horse hockey. In the first place, science has NOT proven human behavior as causal or even related to climate cycles. In the second place, there is no evidence of any kind that the cessation of human C02 emissions would supply a correction. The Warmer approach is therefore not scientific.

‘destroy the world paranoia’

Odd, since I didn’t say that. I said there are groups that desire to reduce human activity. I keep a folder full of links specifically about discussions related to the reduction of human activity in order to ‘save the planet’. Some of them are amusing. Some of them are creepy when you strip away the veneer of good intentions.

Explain NASA hottest decade?

Sure.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3494

Sadly, NASA is an organization corrupted by politics. Obama specifically has pushed to have NASA be less about 'space' and more about 'political justification of my cap & tax plan'. There are good people there, but they are operating in a nasty political environment. Their use of substation data for their temperature projections invalidates their data entirely.

Manufacturing consensus.

But of course, even the article below is from a far right politicized website. For fucks say; give me some goddamn politically independent resources.

http://neveryetmelted.com/2009/12/19/manufacturing-consensus/


Interesting read, however suspect; it would seem that science publications are not without their vile tactics. If you don't like it, control the monopoly of publication. I thought if it was bad science then you publish it and let the bad science speak for itself.

Anti-science know-nothing morons... God love 'em. They can look at scientific data, blink, and convince themselves that they didn't see it. They think global warming is a lie and evolution is the devil. Just as long as they don't control educational policy... oh wait... some of them are politicians? Oh. Oh my. That's not good. Glad my kids go to school on the chillier side of the border, where global warming must be especially wrong.

Who is anti-science? There IS no science at all within the politically motivated argument that human C02 must be reduced to 'prevent' climate change. That isn't an anti science statement. That is a pro-science statement. It just happens to be pro-science AGAINST the baloney that is the man-made global warming position.

Lots of scientists agree that the climate is changing. But there is no consensus that humans (A) changed the climate or (B) could possibly stop climate change. There certainly is ZERO scientific consensus that the best way to deal with climate change is massive transfers of wealth from private citizens and companies to governments.

>> ^Xax:
Anti-science know-nothing morons... God love 'em. They can look at scientific data, blink, and convince themselves that they didn't see it. They think global warming is a lie and evolution is the devil. Just as long as they don't control educational policy... oh wait... some of them are politicians? Oh. Oh my. That's not good. Glad my kids go to school on the chillier side of the border, where global warming must be especially wrong.


Voted you down, when I meant to quote you; now I can't take my vote back. I also forgot what I was going to type.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
blah blah blar (it was really long no disrespect intended) Awesome videos dude, I do value having seen them. Don't agree with it wholesale but them's some damn good points being made. I've always felt the population control thing but nobody wants to hear it, especially my Catholic family members. Watchugunnado.

What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.

As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...

You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.

Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.

I'd like to add this article to the mix:

http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
What you can do is take two tubes fill one with normal air and fill the other with CO2 enriched air, from co2 in soda or something. Make sure the temperatures in both tubes are equal. Close the tubes and shine two identical lights in both tubes. Put an accurate thermometer in both and look at the temperatures. The tube with CO2 will warm more.
As an analyst I would describe this as an extremely flawed experiment. Here is a better one...
You will need at least four different air containers. Container one should have 245ppm of C02 (which represents C02 around 1840). Container two should contain 387ppm of C02 - representing today's current C02 percentage. Container three should contain pure C02. Container four should contain zero C02. All four containers should be completely sealed so no air can enter or escape. They should also be prepared in locations that cannot introduce excess pollutants. IE don't prepare it in a workshop, or a lab, or near an air vent, or some other source that could introduce foreign material. Ideally the containers would be prepared in a vaccuum chamber, and the requisite gasses would be introduced in pure form (nitrogen, oxygen, c02, et al). Each container would have a temperature sensor proven to be accurate to one one-hundredth of a degree affixed in identical locations within the container (ideally, centrally located both vertically & horizontally). Each container would then be placed in a completely seperate dark chamber with one single light source (purchased from the same lot & randomly matched by chamber). Of course you'd select a light source as close to sunlight as possible. They make bulbs like that. Then you record temperatures in all four containers continually for a sufficient longitudinal period. Give it a week perhaps, and take temperature readings every hour.
Such a study would determine the ratio of difference between 245ppm and 387ppm of C02 within a specified volume of air. ANOVA testing could determine whether the difference was in any way significant. I suspect the difference between the 245 and 387 containers would be statistically negligible. C02 can contribute to increased temperatures, to be sure. But the difference between 245 and 387 ppm in a system as large and dynamic as our atmosphere is unlikely to be of any significance.


OMG, I was just making an example of a simple tabletop experiment demonstrating the basic physics of the different emissivities of different gasses.

Heh - well I don't think the simple test is necessary because it has already been established that things like water vapor & C02 can create a 'greenhouse effect' in sufficient quantity. The issue at heart with AGW theory is whether the difference between 245ppm and 387ppm is enough to account for the temperature changes Earth has experienced between 1840 and 2010.

My favorite video on the debate doesn't try to prove climate change, it approaches the logic behind probability and wise decisions regardless of whether you think it's true.

And of course the AGW movement is not helped at all when its so-called 'scientists' are a bunch of hapless screwballs. Honestly, how this guy shouldn't have been allowed to 'research' a picnic, let alone the climate. He throws away his data, he hides his screw-ups, he admits that there has been 'no warming' in 15 years - but then he has the cheek to keep saying he still thinks warming is all man-made. The man is an idiot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html