The Great Global Warming Swindle

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, here's some additional information from the New York Times:

But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.” -- The New York Times

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This thread is a Classic case of only hearing the facts you want to hear .

[David S]

This thread is a Classic case of only hearing the facts you want to hear .

It seems to me that the CO2 induced warming theory gets plenty of press. But nothing stops you from posting anything that supports that argument if you want to.

[??????????]

David S., you've broken the great taboo of questioning science! How dare you!

[12th Doctor]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation. When temperature suddenly shoots up this century, it'll be just due to chance, and not due to that huge increase in CO2.



Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

Again, by your own chart, you have temperatures dropping about 140,000 to 110,000 BP while CO2 stays roughly the same.  Likewise, you have temperature rising about 170,000 while CO2 is dropping, and then dropping as CO2 is rising.  325,000 to roughly 375,000 BP you have temperature decreasing while CO2 increases.

Something else in involved, and we can rule out industrial activities (there weren't any).

Not to mention the period of time around 350,000 YA when the rise in CO2 levels clearly trails the rise in global temperature.

And let us not forget the Gold Rule of Statistics, whihc is probably the only thing in that class that made sense to me... Correlation does not imply causality.

[12th Doctor]

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html



Graph of sunspots (red) and global temp.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html



Graph of sunspots (red) and global temp.

That joke chart stops at 1980. Here's some more complete data.




This shows the most recent sunspot data. So how come 2005 and 1998 are the 2 warmest years on record?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation. When temperature suddenly shoots up this century, it'll be just due to chance, and not due to that huge increase in CO2.



Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

Again, by your own chart, you have temperatures dropping about 140,000 to 110,000 BP while CO2 stays roughly the same.  Likewise, you have temperature rising about 170,000 while CO2 is dropping, and then dropping as CO2 is rising.  325,000 to roughly 375,000 BP you have temperature decreasing while CO2 increases.

Something else in involved, and we can rule out industrial activities (there weren't any).

Not to mention the period of time around 350,000 YA when the rise in CO2 levels clearly trails the rise in global temperature.

And let us not forget the Gold Rule of Statistics, whihc is probably the only thing in that class that made sense to me... Correlation does not imply causality.

As I already made clear, you can't tell which one is leading when they don't share the same time values, and only have a point every several hundred or couple of thousand years.

[12th Doctor]

Honestly, I'm really not saying that there is no connection, and now that I have watched the movie the whole way through, I think it does go a little too far in its conclusion (except for the part about developing countries, because I think that was dead on).  However, I don't think that the level of alam that has been raised on this issue is even close to being warrented.  Manmade greenhouse gases might raise the global temp a degree, but that is far from a disaster, and as I have made the point often, that would be far from the highest temperatures the Earth has seen, even in the time that man has been here.  Look at the Maximum that occured during the Bronze Age, we still have a ways to go to achieve that.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I notice a disturbing trend in this thread:

1) Conservative AGW denier posts some hokey statistics that end abruptly in 1980 or something equally as misleading.

2) Someone else refutes that statistic with more reliable/complete statistics

3)  Conservative AGW denier either A) Disappears mysteriously from the thread or B)  Comes back with something vague and full of rhetoric like "Well, I never denied that global warming is taking place, I just don't think humans are having the effect on it like these "libruls" from that there Democrat party say we are.

[J. J.]

BTW, this is the kind of graph that J.J. claims has no statistically significant correlation. When temperature suddenly shoots up this century, it'll be just due to chance, and not due to that huge increase in CO2.



Here is a different plot of some of the same data.

Again, by your own chart, you have temperatures dropping about 140,000 to 110,000 BP while CO2 stays roughly the same.  Likewise, you have temperature rising about 170,000 while CO2 is dropping, and then dropping as CO2 is rising.  325,000 to roughly 375,000 BP you have temperature decreasing while CO2 increases.

Something else in involved, and we can rule out industrial activities (there weren't any).

Not to mention the period of time around 350,000 YA when the rise in CO2 levels clearly trails the rise in global temperature.

And let us not forget the Gold Rule of Statistics, whihc is probably the only thing in that class that made sense to me... Correlation does not imply causality.

As I already made clear, you can't tell which one is leading when they don't share the same time values, and only have a point every several hundred or couple of thousand years.

If the data is that bad, why are you then making an argument based on it?