Our Oceans are Under Attack

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is...rupt-part-5-co2-emissions-versus-temperature/

Some temperature CO2 charts display long time periods so recent decades get scrunched and lost in the right hand margin. deliberately I suspect.

So here is a chart for those who think recent temperatures have followed recent CO2 human emissions. Or earlier human emissions. No correlation at all.

In the tall narrow chart, I cropped the right hand side and moved the temperature scale right to 1998.
I also transposed a copy of the green CO2 line upward so comparing with temperatures is easier.

 

Nobody doubts climate is changing. Always HAS!
Are we expending our time, wealth, mental capacities on preparing and adapting?
Or are we bogged down in arguing over did MAN cause it with CO2 emissions?
If I told you CO2 human emissions caused earthquakes, you'd say ridiculous. Earthquakes have been around a long time. Well. So has climate change.
Let's get together and solve our problems. And CO2 isn't driving the climate. Look at charts that show recent decades temperature in readable form. Not 30 years a pencil line width.

 

a table of climate prediction vs. actual (they are not very good at it). and one that shows carbon dioxide is not at historic highs, but it has been lower now than it has been in the last 500 million years. the current low level of CO2 is not the "natural" level. Also, notice that CO2 was 170 times higher during the last ice age. how would you account for that?

 

And you always fall back to claiming that no matter how much evidence there is it must all be false, and that every scientist is involved in a dastardly, devious, secret, socialist conspiracy to defraud honest people of their wealth and guns in the name of an evil world government.

Does it never occur to you that most scientists are honest people who got into science because they wanted to know how the world works?

Does it never occur to you that they devote years of their lives to this?

Does it never occur to you that calling them evil and dishonest conspirators just because you find their conclusions unpalatable and in conflict with your religion is a far greater example of egotistic disdain than any shown by any person you have accused of such?

Does it never occur to you that you believe you are smarter and more able and have some natural right to ignore the best information we have available?

 

Scientists are just like everyone else, with the same hopes, dreams and vices, including greed and dishonesty with which they will feather their own nests. Otherwise they would not manipulate data to keep the money rolling in from gullible idiots.

 

And you have just made my point for me, again. You assume that any time a scientist says something you don't like, they must be corrupt and must be manipulating the data. The possibility that they may not be corrupt and the data may be sound doesn't occur to you.

You have no qualms whatsoever about slandering people, even though you don't actually know anything about them and their motivations.

 

I mistakenly attributed to yobernacle a quote from someone else and made a snarky observation, I apologize.

Carry on.

 

As a matter of fact, neither do you believe that "ordinary people should ... control their government or make important decisions." We elect (purchase??) politicians to make decisions on how to run our villages, cities, and nation. And we hire experts to cure our cancer and pilot our ships. But somehow, for some strange (religious) reason, when it comes to obtaining expert advise about how our actions are affecting the global climate, you want throw out the experts' opinion and instead want your average high-school dropout to decide what to do.

 

The thing about science is that it is self-correcting. People make mistakes, or even try to get away with fraud sometimes, but someone will find the mistakes and someone will bust the fraud wide open. You just can't get away with any old thing you feel like making up. The peer review process is constant and ruthless. If you can't support your claims they get trashed, and it doesn't matter how you feel about it.

This, above all, is why the claims of worldwide conspiracy just don't stand up to even casual scrutiny. That every climate scientist in the world could be consistently lying in lockstep with every other climate scientist in the world is just so frankly implausible that I'm surprised anyone wastes their time even contemplating it.

 

Watching Fox News Addicts Viewers And Misinforms Them On Climate Change | THINKPROGRESS.ORG

"These are rich people concerns. When is the last time you met someone working for minimum wage who was really upset about global climate change or even believed it was real?"
—
Fox News' Tucker Carlson

 

Have a great day and enjoy your kool-aid.

 

Everything is a conspiracy in the world of hoyt.

 

There's lot's of high school dropouts do you suppose?
Wonder which party they vote for?

"Among whites, Democrats get the votes of Americans at both ends of the educational spectrum; Republicans get the votes from the educational middle. High school dropouts and people with advanced degrees vote Democrat; those with some college or a college degree vote Republican."

http://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-verdict-on-class-and-voting/

 

Politically incorrect to compare scientists with "lesser" mortals.
And sheer effrontery to compare Climatologists with "lesser" scientists.
Tongue in cheek, Hoyt.
To the rest of you:

Answer these questions.
WHY was the IPCC created?
What was IPCC's foundation ideology or premise?
Who were the founders of the IPCC?
What was the purpose of the climate models IPCC paid climatologists to invent?

Was ANYTHING objective about this "science" underwritten by IPCC?

What is IPCC's political agenda? They ARE a political organization.

I know and can document answers to these questions.
Can YOU or WILL you answer honestly?

I'll give you some clues.

"Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

Pre-supposition man caused climate change and the climate models were commissioned to ILLUSTRATE and support that man caused climate change. Excerpted from document below. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml Objective science?

 

You don't think conspiracies exist and have existed?
Some conspiracy theories are nuts, but some are TRUE!
Google Northwoods.
Google Manhattan project
Google False Flag operations
Google Skunkworks and Area 51

There are a number of competing organizations attempting to create a one world government, with their group dictating.
Conspiracy? or Blatant in our face!
Was creation of the European Union a step toward one world government? Anybody have plans for a North American Union?

Do YOU believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy?

How many climatologists are there and do all agree?
After retiring how many say they were coerced into agreeing?