The Climate Change Hoax

He did? Oh dear....

 

Oh , Really mark ?



troy is more than capable to work it out without your help I think.....

 

Troy,

That page came up over a YEAR ago when I first posted the Beck data. If you read his assertions carefully (I know you do seem to have a problem with that) and compare to the data on Beck's site, you will understand that Beck has a database of tens of thousands of these chemical analysis results. The tens of thousands of results are an important hedge against data bias. Your cited hatchet man* makes assertions about the reliability of some of the chemical analysis methods used, stating that they may produce erroneous results. How often? Of what magnitude? What is the standard deviation? How do you account for any of this?

The answer is simple: use a large data sample. And this is exactly what Beck does.

Please contrast this with what Mann and Briffa have done with their various proxy data sets, especially the tree rings. In one particularly egregious case, they threw out all but three trees in an entire data set, resting the entire conclusion of their study (which was that 20th century warming is anomalous) on a tiny, "carefully selected" group of three (3) trees! And then they took 12 years of stonewalling to finally reveal to the world that this is what they had done. So much for peer-review

Beck uses over 200, 000 data points to account for errors and drift that inevitably occurs in any data set. Do you realize what a black art it is to get temperature data from a proxy like tree rings? Or even CO2 data from ice cores? Or sponges? Or plant stomata? Do you honestly think those are better than chemical analysis? Are you even aware of the argument that ice cores are not even a reliable atmospheric archive?

You might think I'm trying to evade your supposed 'rebuttal' but in fact I'm taking it head on. Show us how your (dozen or two) ice cores and sponges are more reliable than Beck's 200,000 chemical test results. Show us how three tree rings prove the existence of "Dangerous Global Warming" but 200, 000 chemical test results focused on only one parameter, the CO2 concentration, are invalid. Are you even aware that the particular ice cores used to get your fabled "pre-industrial baseline" actually partially MELTED prior to analysis? Are you not aware that melted ice cores are WORTHLESS?

I'm beginning to think you are just a C & P guy; you don't really get any of this.

Jimbo


*He earns this title with the 2nd paragraph, where he states "there is little doubt that humans are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the past 50 years, and probably over the past 150 years." How ridiculous! Does he not know how puny our CO2 emissions were circa 1850? Later, near the end of this 'presentation', he is incredulous that 210Gt CO2 could possibly be fluxed from the atmosphere over a 10 year period! But the 35 peer-reviewed residence time studies PROVE that the residence time is short (~5 years), meaning ~20% of the total atmospheric sink of ~750 Gt, or150Gt, is fluxed out EVERY YEAR! So he believes in a long residence time? On what basis?

The guy is a HACK!

 

I understand this, Jimbo: you're so blindly welded to your role as professional critic, skeptic and naysayer that you're in no position to make snotty remarks about me.

Let's see: hundreds of scientists worldwide are actually too stupid or too dishonest to do their job. The relative handful who don't agree with them are the only competent and honest ones....

The conclusions mainstream climatologists come to by looking at uncertain data are worthless. But what Ernst Beck concludes after looking at the same uncertain data is solid gold.....

The credibility of the Oregon Petition Project is completely untarnished by the fact that it was financed by Exxon Mobil, and carried out by professional public relations people who previously whored for major tobacco companies....

Petroleum comes from abiotic processes deep in the earth, in spite of the fact that it's invariably found in association with marine microfossils. Although it's perfectly reasonable for fish fossils to be found on top of a mountain, it's ridiculous to believe (as the geologists who find the oil for petroleum companies do) that some seabeds get buried under sediment, encapsulating organic materials that become oil....because you know what the total biomass over millions of years should add up to, and whatever the amount of oil is, it doesn't match.

The wars and disagreements we see between countries are an illusion or a deliberate distraction...because all the countries are secretly run by the same small group of people, for their own benefit. And somehow it's more profitable for them to scare us into alternative energy sources than it is to keep selling us oil.....

Yep. You've pegged me, Jimbo. I'm just an ignorant cut-and-paster, with absolutely no idea what the real world is like. Unlike you....

 

Hi Jim
Its been a while
how you been and hows that diet working out for you
not sure I know anyone who is still following the Atkins so it would be interesting to see what the actually lab results might be, I assume you are getting annual lab work done to make sure things are within acceptable limits
anyway to the point if I may

I was just surfing, couldnt miss the tittle of the thread and just had to drop in for a quick peek
Am I reading this correctly, did you just admit that the data shows that the medieval warming period was a local event or claim its only because the trees grew in a biased manor somehow.

interesting bit of logic

its been a long time and I wont waste much of my time but I guess when I heard the name of Lindzen invoked I just couldn't help myself. I'm not going to reinvest my time on any of this but wasn't Lindzen the guy who was caught lying about taking Energy Industry money to write pro Energy Industry tripe or was he the guy that used to work for the Tobacco industry writing papers about why cigarettes are good for you. I believe we went over the term Agnotology a while back and dont need to revisit that one either although the term does cover this guys ( ahem, choke, cough ) "work" accurately.

Im just dropping in temporarily, but really, has nothing at all been learned about what constitutes science in all this time.

I couldn't help but notice that graph concerning chemically derived co2 values stopped in what 1960 or something like that. Someone mentioned the extreme inaccuracy of the methodology, but that got immediately passed off as some kind of norm for science, nothing could be farther from the truth.

one reason the chart of accepted results only goes back about 800,000 years max is that its our most accurate data set, and science leaves off where the data becomes more than x% unclear.



The scientific process is entirely dependent on a consensus view of established data collection methods and does not generally accept extreme deviations in any given data stream by any one researcher as "proof" of anything.

the lack of comprehension starts with a misunderstanding of the scientific process and progresses like a snow ball from there into the many false arguments of the conspiracy theorists

personally I agree that its a complete waste of money to expect the American people to clean up the results of excess co2 when the responsibility lies clearly on the shoulders of the polluter's themselves, the Energy Industry. They are the most profitable industry in history and yet they are expected to pay nothing to help alleviate the issues associated with the use of there product. Now thats what you call an effective lobby team.

cheers
and no worries
Im not going to stick around to rain on the parade
although I am honestly curious as to how the diet is working out for you

best
B

 

HEY, I've seen that graph somewhere before - Show us the rest of it!

 

ssshhhh
dont tell anyone
its just eh first one I grabbed
didn't really feel like digging into my files for one that might be more "acceptable" to the conspiracy people
so I typed in to google and that popped up
thought Ild just see if anyone recognized it

haw have you been mark
anything new in the north

 

Agnotology? There's an actual word for the study of the organized ignorance I've spent years trying to describe and fight? Thanks for adding it to my vocabulary, Boston.

 

ya well just wait till you hear the storm of abuse coming for mentioning it again

nearly every "scientific" source used by the conspiracy people ( energy industry reps ) has got serious ties with the PR campaign, but mention it, stand back, and enjoy the show cause it tends to get ugly fast.

nice reading some of your posts as well
best of luck
B

 

Thats pretty much whats about to happen Elmo

Soon enough a troupe of energy industry PR people ( incognito of course ) will show up and land blast me for mentioning the obvious.

at which point Ill bail out again and then they will chase me through the forum ( not you Jim you were always at least polite enough to keep it to the climate threads )

any way
carry on

best
B

 

With an IED you mean? nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

 

IUD in the case of some?

 

Fortunately, or rather unfortunately, this forum does not represent the real world and if a defender of global warming feels unsafe here for some fluke of nature that made boat loving people more sane than the general population, the reality out there is that denying Global Warming is already a virtual capital punishment and will probably soon be made illegal.

When my office, announced some "green" measures to "reduce our carbon footprint" I challenged the validity of the measures proposed beyond the political correctness and was told that I couldn't make my denialist thought public in any way shape or form.

The same office had been collecting pull rings from aluminium cans under the pretense that someone was going to extract the titanium that is in them [hoax] and manufacture prosthesis for the victims of mines. When I challenged the futility of such efforts since there is no titanium in the pull rings, I was blasted for being insensitive against the poor mutilated victims.

Logic or truth have nothing to do with any of this collective paranoia, and the religious fanaticism displayed by the official version of events who I must add is the one that has the fattest check book in history and the one that has on the payroll/leash the largest number of scientist is the one that will persecute those like me who voice their discontent at the official array of lies and clearly not the other way around. Not for a long time anyway.

 

If a defender of global warming opposes the things he considers warming up the globe, he would be against global warming, and if you really defend global warming then you should promote all things causing it. So considering the fact that this promoting side of the global warming say that it's phenomen which we can't influence whatever we do or do not, becouse it's mostly due solar activity, there's actually nothing anyone can do about it and so there aren't such identity as a defender of global warming

 

I recently left a position that I had worked hard for and yet in the end once I got there I found that the level of political correctness had to be seen let alone believed. I spoke out about the waste of attempting to recycle some materials as the energy of reverse distribution far outweighed any benefit. That didnt go over well, after all "what are we teaching the children". My response was to suggest we place our efforts in prudent places and not just in an effort to make ourselves feel better about things like excessive use of plastics. I was also censured for suggesting that focusing on teaching the "next" generation is suggesting that we have another generation to procrastinate, passing off problems of our creation on another, as well as admitting that "this" generation is just passing its trash off on the "next". I protested spending 50 million intended for conservation of endangered species, specifically on 7 animals of a not so endangered species and using half of that to construct a gasification plant intended to provide "green" energy to those 7 animals. My issues with that outfit had as much to do with political correctness as you had with yours. Doesnt mean conservation is a negative though or that we should not recycle. What it means is that we need to focus and act before its to late and given the limited time and resources that focus needs be efficiently applied

Your suggesting that the essence of Rapid global climate change is based on a lie

Not so at all. You might watch the following and it will explain a lot and while its a hard pill to swallow for some few die hard conspiracy theorists the vast majority of the scientists who actually study climate change are in resounding agreement with the basic theory. Something like 97% of them to be specific. The science has been understood for quite some time and the basic physics involved is nuts and bolts stuff, applied to innumerable areas of engineering and science. Were these simple elements of physics not accurate the everyday tools used in both industry and science would simply not function. There is no lie or assumption but instead a solid basis of science and careful study of the data. This "collective paranoia" is nothing more than another fight against another pollutant. This time one that harms the planet rather than harms just its inhabitants.

best of luck and I hope you enjoy the flick