Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Seven investigations showed there was no climategate

    And how many scientists do you think there are in the world?

    The IPCC had over 3,000 authors and only about one in ten actually worked with the IPCC

    There are hundreds of journals and they could not get it accepted by ONE??
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they automatically dismiss any dissenting opinion like some in this thread are doing right now.
     
  3. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seven bogus investigations conducted by other branches of the church. Seven foxes aquited the eighth fox for raiding the hen house.
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The Guardian has done a masterful job

    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  5. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of climategate. Thank you.
     
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  7. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am actually working on a presentation on deforestation and biological processes. I can tell you that what you read in the media is not what is available in the scientific literature.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:

    Yeah suuuuuuuure!

    [​IMG]
     
    politicalcenter likes this.
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why don't they present their findings to their peers? Dr. Christy is no amateur on the peer review process and he has many AGW-skeptical papers published so the ostracized argument doesn't work here.
     
    Zhivago and Bowerbird like this.
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's so sad. An entire generation of folks who believe that the substance of their own lives is nothing more than pollution. And yet, we just can't get Al or so many of the other mouth pieces to just shut up already. Save the planet folks, stop talking and breathing........
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When a so called paper uses phrases such as
    sadder are those who do it know the difference between a research paper and a blog and who let Faux news do thief thinking for them
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
  13. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't start this thread with any illusion that I would sway the opinion of true believers such as yourself. I started it for three reasons.
    1: We are inundated with cult propoganda and it's good to get the opposition view out whenever possible so people with functioning minds could read it and get informed.
    2: To point out that no it's not "settled science" and no not "all scientist agree".
    3: There's still a bit if that little boy in me that used to sneak up on a hornet's nest and wack it with a stick and run off laughing as the angry hornet's swarmed out to defend their colony. LOL
     
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deforestation is a real issue with real consequences. Anyway to present your findings here?
     
  15. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, it will be towards to end of the month.
     
  16. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climategate was not about the peer review process. It was about inappropriately worded emails that made it seem like the IPCC contributors were making stuff up. The two central issues were:

    "Mike Nature Trick" - This is a reference to the way Mike Mann stitched tree ring derived temperatures to instrumental temperature records. The word "trick" is not used pejoratively here. It's used as a slang term for a clever way of dealing with a problem.

    "hide the decline" - This is in reference to the tree ring divergence problem. The model for deriving temperatures from tree ring growth rates at the time had only been formalized up to the mid 20th century. The model was not intended to be used for data after that time because it was already known to produce bad results in specific circumstances. That's what they wanted to "hide". It was a discussion about removing data points that were known to be nonsensical. Briffa wanted the bad data points displayed with a footnote explaining to the reader that they should be ignored. He thought it was more transparent that way. The others on the email thread disagreed.

    No less than 8 independent committees reviewed the matter and concluded that no wrongdoing or fraud had occurred. I still think climategate was a necessary step for openness. It forced the IPCC to be more open. I'm a big proponent of transparency even if it means people will misinterpret your work. But, non-experts are going to misunderstand or misinterpret regardless so what's the big deal?
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
    Bowerbird and Zhivago like this.
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I read their whitepaper. You should too. I have some questions for you to ponder.

    Why did they concentrate on on tropical (30S-0-30N) regions?

    What do you think about using RSS/UAH, which itself is the mostly heavily "manipulated" dataset in use, and then doubling down and "manipulating" that dataset even more by removing the El Nino events?
     
    Bowerbird and Zhivago like this.
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Were it at the levels of say 20,000 ppm, that could be important. But the amount claimed is simply too small.

    https://principia-scientific.org/co2-caused-global-warming-invalidated-conclusively/

    Findings of the Research

    These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.

    Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA�s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate�13 times in fact�that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift.

    Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, the research strongly implies that there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.

    Finally, regarding the credibility of these research findings, the temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.

    PDF of this Executive Summary here.

    See full abridged 68 page report here. The authors and reviewers all highly recommend that you read the PREFACE which explains the methodology and will help you better understand the detailed temperature analyses.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is an excelling living to be had by those who will peer review. People assume there are no charges to get papers reviewed, but it can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is not a denial cult as you suggest. We who argue this are not persuaded by weak taunts, insults nor incomplete science. We do not claim oil is behind the resistance. We don't care who does the research. But we do insist on complete science.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02...muel-alito-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant/

    Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: ‘Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant’

    Alito: 'A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting.'

     
  22. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zhivago and Bowerbird like this.
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Who is insulting???

    Pointing out that someone is in error is not an insult

    Meanwhile - on the one hand we have tens of thousands of scientists saying climate change is real on the other we have about 50 well documented liars with links to big energy

    Who are you going to believe??
     
    politicalcenter and Zhivago like this.
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What is his science degree in??
     
    Zhivago likes this.
  25. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look forward to it.
     

Share This Page