|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: An inconvenient truth.... or lie? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
RCS writes: Developed countries produce more than 80% of all pollutants. Do people care? 1. How do the remote sensors differenciate between anthropogenic and other CO2, etc? How do they determine which nation/s produce the most pollutants? The prevailing winds eventually carry the polution across the Pacific from China and other nations to the US where the censors would eventually pick up data, would they not? 2. Blessed be the developed countries who send the air lifted famine relief, manufacture the water pumps, the electronic goodies, most of the food, the tools, heat and light our homes, the automobiles and all of the other nice things humans like. The question is whether the harm done is sufficient to destroy the planet. Objective weather scientists admit that it is difficult to calculate warming data so as to make determinations. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4537 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined:
|
Buz, do you even read your own links? If you actually did, you'd see that the pictures of temperature sensors that you've been going on about have all been from - as far as I can tell - just two facilities. That's two facilities out of the 54 in California alone, out of 1221 in just the US, from just NOAA alone. The source of those pictures is the US Historical Climate Neworks. At least part of USHCN's job appears to be surveying NOAA surface stations. If you'll look for more than 10 seconds, you'll see that those highlighted stations were being specifially cited as examples of known placement problems, as documented by the responsible organizations themselves. In other words, the people who work with this data know which stations have problems, and they actually can assess by how much they're off. What your're citing isn't evidence of willful deceit or negligent data gathering; this is a case of error correction.
Wow, who would have thought that climatologists would think to check the reliablity of their data? So what you're looking at are problems from a handful of weather stations, which are only gathering data regarding one particular phenomenon - land surface temperature. This says absolutely nothing about all the temperature data coming from all the other sources in the world, nor about temperature data taken at, for example, the ocean surface or at various altitudes above the earth's surface. For that matter, surface temperature is only one factor in the vast array of other evidence that supports AGW, such as CO2 levels, emmission levels, changes in sea level, enviromental shifts, etc. And by the way, didn't you just say:
quote: So a handful of known potential errors in some temperature readings supports your case against AGW how exactly, when apparently you aren't contesting the validity of temperature data anyway? Edited by ZenMonkey, : Spelling ang tpyso.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
How do the remote sensors differenciate between anthropogenic and other CO2, etc? How do they determine which nation/s produce the most pollutants? The prevailing winds eventually carry the polution across the Pacific from China and other nations to the US where the censors would eventually pick up data, would they not? Sensors, Buz!, Sensors. A censor is someone who censors film, music, books etc., a sensor measures something. Anyways, pedantry aside, sensors do not measure the difference between the CO2 we put out and the CO2 put out by natural sources; nor do they measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere atributable to each particular nation. No. Those things are calculated by a vast array of different measurements. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
The source of those pictures is the US Historical Climate Neworks. At least part of USHCN's job appears to be surveying NOAA surface stations. If you'll look for more than 10 seconds, you'll see that those highlighted stations were being specifially cited as examples of known placement problems, as documented by the responsible organizations themselves. Your link does not support that statement
quote: Which rather suggests that USHCN is not doing what you are saying it is. Here is a link to NOAA's response to SurfaceStations.org Edited by Mr Jack, : Added NOAA response
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Mr. Jack writes: Here is a link to NOAA's response to SurfaceStations.org Hi Mr Jack. According to your link the modernization and maintainence upgrading funding just happens to apply to the hottest region of our nation, the Southwest. Isn't that convenient for the warmist camp? Perhaps it would have been scientifically prudent to spread what funds that were available evenly over the cold and hot regions so as to arrive at a more objective conclusion.
Additionally, an effort is underway to modernize the Historical Climatology Network (a network of over 1000 long-term weather and climate stations), though funds are currently available only to modernize and maintain stations in the Southwest. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Mr Jack writes: Sensors, Buz!, Sensors. A censor is someone who censors film, music, books etc., a sensor measures something. Yah, I know. These senior moments are bummers. I had it right by the end of the paragraph. Better late than never.
Anyways, pedantry aside, sensors do not measure the difference between the CO2 we put out and the CO2 put out by natural sources; nor do they measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere atributable to each particular nation. Perhaps the complexity of it all allows for a significant amount of leeway so as to follow the money, the planet's prestigious peer pressure and the global agenda. The disclaimer comes in the admission of the difficulty in data determinations. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4537 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: Your link does not support that statement Agreed, I seem to have not fully understood the tangle of acronyms and organizational activites. However, the NOAA document you're linked to actually strengthens my case rather than weakening it.
quote: Also:
quote: And lastly:
quote: So NOAA appears to on top of things, and the volunteers from surfacestations.org have in fact not uncovered some huge mistake or even conspiricy in surface temperature data. Moreover, my original points still stand: 1) The problems appear to be noted and adjusted for.2) They affect only a subset of all the data input. 3) Even if this data were completely unreliable and discarded, there is an overflowing amount of other data that supports the case that global temperatures are rising. 4) Buz wasn't even contesting the fact that global temperatures are rising anyway, so how does this help his case, exactly? Edited by ZenMonkey, : Got name of website wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Hi Mr Jack. According to your link the modernization and maintainence upgrading funding just happens to apply to the hottest region of our nation, the Southwest. Isn't that convenient for the warmist camp? Perhaps it would have been scientifically prudent to spread what funds that were available evenly over the cold and hot regions so as to arrive at a more objective conclusion. When you're looking at trends absolute values matter little so the southwest being warming isn't a problem (although a reduced spread of data points is). I'd presume the reason the southwest is getting the update first is either because funding comes from particular bodies or because there's a reason to want better data in that region in particular.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4537 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Perhaps the complexity of it all allows for a significant amount of leeway so as to follow the money, the planet's prestigious peer pressure and the global agenda. The disclaimer comes in the admission of the difficulty in data determinations. Are you suggesting that because the science is hard it must be part of some vast global conspiricy under which all those green activist billionaires are going to take over the planet? By way of reply:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ZenMonkey writes: Are you suggesting that because the science is hard it must be part of some vast global conspiricy under which all those green activist billionaires are going to take over the planet? Hi Zen. Green activist sheeple aid and abet fat cat globalist polititions, central bankers and others who conspire to enrich and empower themselves, undermine nationalism and empoverish industrious capitalist free nations. All will relatively soon, become subservient to the emerging New World Order. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
I really should have pegged you as a conspiracy nut from the start, Buz.
Green activist sheeple "Green activists" are not a monolithic group. Supporting cleaner air and water, desiring reduced reliance on fossil fuels for energy, wanting increased shifts to solar and air power are all worthy goals even if climate change were compeltely and totally false. Not all of us are "greenpeace." In fact, I'm an immensely strong supporter of nuclear power as our best hope for clean, reliable, long-term energy. Most "green activists" would think I'm almost as bad as you for that.
aid and abet fat cat globalist polititions, central bankers and others who conspire to enrich and empower themselves, undermine nationalism and empoverish industrious capitalist free nations. Really? Where are all of the wind turbines produced? Where do solar panels come from? Exactly how does lessening reliance on fossil fuels undermine national sovereignty? You;re an idiot, Buz, if you honestly believe that shifting to greener energy sources is nothing more than a drain on our economies. In factm the "fat cats" you're talking about are in the real world (as opposed to your fantasy land) oil barons and other preservers of the status quo. The Middle East has become rich by feeding the unsatiable Western appetite for oil,to the point where we currently base much of our foreign policy on that region. Do you really think the US would be on such friendly terms with the Muslim Theocracy of Saudi Arabia if they didn't have their oil fields? Would we be constructing military bases in the region if we didn't rely on oil? You scoff at a splinter in the eye of another and completely miss the plank in your own. Fool. You carry on with your drivel about how emissions standards and other green policies will strangle the economies of the Western world. You even suggest that reparations will be paid to poorer nations. You base this on...nothing whatsoever. It;s a conspiracy theory, Buz. You;re no better than some moron on the street prattling on about UFOs and the gunman on the grassy knoll. Do you get your ideas from the Weekly World News? Are you also afraid of Batboy? The fact is, there's nothing whatsoever about climate change that even remotely carries forward an initiative for a single world government, or reparations to poorer nations, or the decline of national sovereignty, or any of your other insane musings. The fact is, changing industry over to cleaner standards creates jobs and helps the industrialized world economies, simply because that's where the new technology is developed and manufactured. It;s no different from the other major changes to industry - the introduction of plastics, computers that can fit on a desk, etc. The emissions standards serve not to strangle business, but to offer an incentive to businesses based on cleaner standards. I know you don't comprehend natural selection, Buz, but this is simply a form of artificial selection, where pressure is placed to cause industry to find that green is in their own best interest.
All will relatively soon, become subservient to the emerging New World Order. I'm sure. Let me guess - Obama is the Antichrist, he's going to bring the world under his single government, and then Jesus comes back and takes you away? Seriously Buz - immediately provide objective, solid evidence for your claims: 1) climate change prevention furthers a one world government2) green technologies enrich the current "fat cats" more than the status quo does 3) reparations will be paid to the 3rd world in compensation for climate change that you simultaneously believe is not actually happening ...or concede that you are, in fact, an imbecilic gasbag who simply repeats whatever fanciful nonsense most closely matches your "end times" fairy tale, without any reliance on evidence, logic, or in fact even sanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 828 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Make sure your tin hat is shiny side out, Buz.
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: Really? Where are all of the wind turbines produced? Where do solar panels come from? Exactly how does lessening reliance on fossil fuels undermine national sovereignty? Nobody's demeaning alternative energy sources. I'm all for it, but reality is until alternatives become developed we have been rendered dependent on despotic and third world nations for our energy when in fact the greenies and animal rightists have managed to forbid drilling offshore while China sucks it out from under our shores, drilling in Alaska, drilling huge gas reserves, forbidding nuclear reactors, forbidding mining of vast coal reserves etc. This all undermines our national sovereignty as other nations whom we've become dependent upon tap all of these sources of energy. To rub salt in the wound, they want our taxpayer $$ to distribute the wealth which impoverishes us and stiffles employment, etc. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz writes: All will relatively soon, become subservient to the emerging New World Order. But Buz as this signifies the end of the world and the final inevitable fulfilment of biblical prophecy shouldn't you be cheering this on with zeal and gusto? If this is what you truly believe I don't understand your objections? Surely the sooner the better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3128 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024