Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

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

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, that's actually ironic. I just pointed out how the media is quick to report on significant warming effects but slow to the report same with cooling events. I'm way ahead of you here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...global-warming.530851/page-17#post-1068990096

    But, here's my question for you. Why are you even bringing this up? You've told me repeatedly that the GISS dataset (among others) is all fake. So do you believe it or not?
     
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong question. Here's the right question: how the hell do you get temp data from 1960 out of a sensor array that didn't begin deployment until 2000?
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe it, and I'm sure it will be incrementally falsified over time to erase the recent cooling event, just as it has been incrementally falsified to erase the warmth of the 1930s and 40s that people now in their 90s remember from their youth.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  4. Anobsitar

    Anobsitar Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And it's a greenhouse gas and indicator of the waste of energy of human beings. As far as I heard president Trump destroys the EPA (What will it cost to rebuild this knowledge again?) and in the next climate conference after Paris we - all other nations in the world except the USA - will find out, we will not be able to reach the 2° limit. I guess the USA will not be a part of the next worldwide climate conference - and if, then the USA will officially not only not be able to give valid results - the USA will in the opposite even present fake results and fight against all others. What I do not understand: The USA should be interested not to do suicide as any other nation in the world is not interested in doing suicide. What is an explanation for the crazy behavior of the USA in all discussions about the global warming? It exists even a waste of energy in the discussion about this theme, what is counterproductive on its own.

     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  5. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With every single credentialed disagreement with man made global warming we can counter with the institution that provided that credential which is backed by hundreds of scientists who are in agreement. It just seems silly to debate a point agreed upon by every accredited university in the world, every major corporation in the US and the official position of every leader of the free world except for DT. All major corporations are moving on to solutions......the debate has been over among enlightened people’s for decades.
     
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Since when is slack-jawed credulity in the face of the pronouncements of authority figures who have demonstrated no relevant competence a sign of enlightenment?
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since there are no major corporations, institutes of higher learning or Govts in the entire world that will listen to this tripe or even give employment to you if you seek a position of relative importance where long term weather weather considerations are important. Just list them, please if you think there are. They’re after solutions, not engaging in mundane debates.
     
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show me where "every single credentialed scientist" calls C02 a pollutant.
     
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s a mundane and irrelevant idea. It’s what you deniers do to rationalize being poorly informed. Man exists on this planet
    because the correct balance of gasses is appropriate for our survival. Many gases can be indirectly hazardous to your health over time if the level of concentration is altered enough to become problematic. Read a science book. CO2 is a beneficial atmospheric gas that can become problematic at higher levels.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Might I remind you of the title of the thread you are responding to.

    Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
     
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently, then, the enlightenment potential attendant to slack-jawed credulity depends on its object, in your view. Setting aside for the moment the philosophical bankruptcy of that idea, it behooves us to remember that major corporations tend not to be averse to the throttling of competition by way of government regulation, institutes of "higher" learning are dominated by leftist ideologues, and governments have no shortage of power-hungry bureaucrats.
    To be sure, every hero needs a villain, even if he has to invent one.
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you incorrectly imagine such a point to be?
    Enlightened people know such debates are far from over. The thrust now seems to be to alter the historical data enough to throw deep learning AI off the scent of accurate climate modeling.
     
  13. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be saying a lot with no references. Let’s see them.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a silly, fatuous demand. When I make a claim that requires references, I'll provide them. Pointing out self-evident facts and their logical implications does not require references.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conspiracy theories are the opposite of being self evident.
     
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <yawn> So, there has never been a conspiracy, because anyone who said there was was just a conspiracy theorist?

    We KNOW there is an active conspiracy to falsify climate science. The Climategate emails proved it.
     
  17. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming.

    We find that to be unfounded: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
    Climate Gate is a manufactured controversy.
    A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing.
    Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
    iamanonman likes this.
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the years since Mann's infamous hockeystick graph and Climategate there have been dozens of independent research efforts to reconstruct the historical global mean temperature. Some of these efforts were even convened with skepticism as a means for challenging Mann's research in an academic way. Some use similar techniques from independent groups and some use wildly different techniques altogether. And yet at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of the research confirms both Mann's original hockeystick graph and the IPCC's publications.

    Furthermore, most people who subscribe to the conspiracy theories of Climategate don't even understand the context of "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick". They usually assign meanings to them that are vastly different than what the authors of the emails were talking about. For example, "hide the decline" is not in reference to an observed decline in temperature and "Mike's Nature trick" is not some nefarious ploy to con the masses as conspiracy theorists and denier propaganda says.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
    Chronocide Fiend likes this.
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whistleblower.
    Nope. I don't know of anyone who claimed that. What skeptics claimed, correctly, was that the emails raised a troubling possibility that the hysterical screaming about apocalyptic warming caused specifically by use of fossil fuels was primarily fueled by a small cabal of anti-fossil fuel activists posing as scientists.

    Because it's a strawman.
    Manufactured by the misconduct of the anti-fossil-fuel activists -- not scientists -- in question.
    According to absurdly lax standards thereof.
    You again seek to redefine the issue to evade the facts. Global warming is not the issue. Climate change is not the issue. Man-made global warming is not the issue. Man-made climate change is not the issue. The issue is whether EMPIRICAL SCIENCE supports the claim that CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global warming far greater than predicted by the known physics of radiative heat transfer through some assumed but not empirically based positive feedback effect of water vapor.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your fact check site is a notorious left wing spin site disguised as a fact checker
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of it is wrong?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same thing that was wrong when the left said Clinton was convicted of perjury for lying about a blow job. I don't expect you to understand my point so don't even try, you might hurt yourself.
     
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're right. I have no idea what this means.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  24. Chronocide Fiend

    Chronocide Fiend Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    28
    In tinfoil land, “incrementally falsified” means “we accounted for variables.” Just because researchers account for things like nighttime readings vs. morning readings, or different thermometers, or different methods of taking temperature does not automatically mean “conspiracy.” Just because a pseudo-skeptic blogger takes data from a source and creatively reinterprets it to reflect what he thinks feels like the “real” data to him, does not mean you have evidence.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This entire discussion is based upon a study conducted by three individuals. In order to be taken seriously by any one with any interest or knowledge in real science, it needs to be published by a reputable institution and peer reviewed by those in related fields. I found no such institution attaching their name to this so called study. Can you provide one ? Examples might be any of the 3000 plus accredited institutes of higher learning and those institutions that specialize in climate related activities....like NASA......and other related agency .
    The word that comes to mind without this attachment...is “bogus.”
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.

Share This Page