The great discussion about global warming

[Gendarme]

Since this post became so vast, I am starting a new thread instead of posting it in the Trump-Hillary thread. This is primarily a reply to you @Jerom

notification

, but I am explicitly inviting the following people to put in their two cents, because we have had an unfinished discussion on the subject, and/or because I am interested in what you have to say (however, feel free to ignore if you are uninterested): @n0eL

notification

@knusch

notification

@Metis

notification

@howlingwolfpaw

notification

No source on the whole internet would make any non-physicist understand the physics behind this in the slightest. Piers Corbyn says that the solar and lunar magnetic fields are what drive the climate of the earth, and has asked for a serious debate with any physicist who claims otherwise (but frankly I don't think those physicists exist). There are a number of debates with Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology) and Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist), but none of them are discussing the physics behind it (because it is probably impossible to find a physicist who's ready to defend the CO2 hype in a debate). Richard and Piers always end up having to argue against cheap rhetoric (e.g. ad populum and ad hominem).

I don't know what kind of studies you want me give you, but I have not been interested in searching for articles on the subject, because the countless videos on the subject on YouTube are more than enough evidence (however, you can probably easily find the actual research papers of the studies explained in the four links I have included). Having Piers explaining climate in layman's terms is probably the best way to understand (and he and others have done that in plenty of YouTube videos). It is possible to disagree on politics and ethics, but not on science and facts. To be honest, the documentary and the separate videos of Piers, Richard, and Christopher are more interesting than any paper you could read. Let me explain why the CO2 hype is a lie:

The arguments from people on the CO2 hype-train are almost exclusively fallacies (e.g. ad populum, ad hominem, Pascal's wager):
- Christopher Monckton debating on Australian TV (Pascal's wager at 5:41)
- Christopher Monckton before US congress (part 2/3) (ad hominem and bullying at 6:08)
- Christopher Monckton interviewed by Australian TV (he gets cut off and discredited at 5:27)
- Piers Corbyn on British TV (I don't even know in what category to put the argument at 4:31)
- Debate between Bill Nye and Richard Lindzen (ad populum and slight ad verecundiam at 6:08)
- Discussion between British politician and Richard Lindzen (Tim Yeo's agenda is clearly not to have a discussion, but to obsessively try to put words in Richard's mouth)

People opposing the CO2 hype are requesting evidence and debates/discussions, but no scientist (of the alleged 97% of the world's scientist) is stepping forward:
- Piers Corbyn on British TV (Piers welcoming any scientist to a conference, but Ackers is obviously uninterested at 3:41)
- Piers Corbyn calling out Brian Cox to a debate (Brian Cox is apparently a Professor of Physics who's on the CO2 hype-train. I predict Brian Cox isn't accepting the debate.)
- Christopher Monckton calling out Al Gore to a debate
- A group of 30,000 scientists calling out for a debate

There are huge political motives behind the CO2 hype:
- Richard Lindzen and Paul Reiter saying that IPCC lies about the 97% (at 4:31)
- Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Philip Stott, Nigel Calder, James Shikwati, and Patrick Moore point out various political motives to perpetuate the lie (5:55-7:30)
- Nigel Lawson pointing out that people are afraid to come out as non-believers (at 8:42)
- Government funding propping up the number to 97% (at 45:14)
- Why model-forecasts of complex systems is rather propaganda than truth (at 50:50)
- Natural disasters caused by warming is nothing but fear mongering propaganda (at 53:18)
- IPCC censoring what they do not wish to hear (at 59:44)
- IPCC's immense deception to raise the number to 97% (at 1:00:53)
- Scientists speaking out against the CO2 hype get punished (at 1:01:51)
- Piers Corbyn predicts global cooling for the coming 20 years (at 3:05)
- Nigel Farage speaking up against the lies and points out the global cooling (at 1:20)
- As a cause of the CO2 hype, there are more laws and more taxation. This is a huge motive to make people believe in man-made global warming even if it weren't true (and it isn't).

The most important arguments (I think) against the CO2 hype:
If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, the troposphere should be warmer than it is (16:54 - 20:14)
The rise in CO2 comes after the rise in temperature; not the other way around (at 22:40)
Explanation of why CO2 increases as a cause of rise in temperature (25:44 - 27:40)
Explanation of how the sun, cosmic rays, and clouds control the temperature (28:40-36:00)

Notable people that oppose the CO2 hype that I am aware of:
- Nir Shaviv (Professor of Physics)
- Ian Clark (Professor of Geology)
- Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist, weather forecaster)
- John Christy (climate scientist)
- Paul Reiter (biologist)
- Richard Lindzen (Professor of Physics)
- Patrick Moore (co-founder and former President of Greenpeace)
- Roy Spencer (Ph. D. in meteorology)
- Patrick Michaels (Ph. D. in climatology)
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Professor of Geophysics)
- Frederick Sanger (Biochemist, two-time Nobel Prize winner)
- Carl Wunsch (Professor of Oceanography)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen (Professor of Geophysics)
- Joe Bastardi (meteorologist)

TL;DR (shame on you):
- The claim that 97% of scientists (or whatever the explicit claim is) is a lie (also note that people are being paid to join this 97%), and even if it weren't, science and reality has never and will never be about consensus. There have been many times throughout history where the consensus has been wrong. And in our modern society with the extreme influence of the media, getting the masses to reach a consensus on anything is extremely easy.

- The voices of the opposition are effectively silenced, strenghtening the illusion that the vast majority of scientists agree on the subject. I wasn't even aware that there was a dispute about global warming until I accidentally stumbled upon it on the internet.

- Whenever their voices finally manage to get heard, they are patronized and their arguments are ignored, while the above discussed point of the 97% is referred to. Cheap rhetoric seems to be sufficient to avoid the debate.

- There's a strong political motive to perpetuate this lie, because of immense taxation and regulations imposed on the people as a cause of it.

I have spent so much time writing this, that it is possible I have forgot a lot. I might edit this post in the future if I find it appropriate.

[pecelot]

ego post

[momuuu]

Do you have any background in physics yourself then?

Also saying youtube is a good source is basically ridiculing yourself. Articles that are peer reviewed provided by scientific journals have authority. A wikipedia-page that draws from it also has some. Me explaining something about physics arguably has even more authority than a youtube video, which has literally none.

Other than that, I sleep at night so I will sleep now too. I will try to explain you things and link serious sources which all strongly disagree with your bullshit tomorrow.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Metis]

There is no doubt that humans are contributing to global warming but it's pure hype to say that they are causing it. Those who whine for and legislate to reduce "carbon footprints" are either doing so out of ignorance, indoctrination or political expediency. The world today runs on fossil fuel. Local areas can brag that they are switching to alternative energy production and good for them for expanding the energy base. However, if you look at the goods and services they import and export you will see that even they are still highly dependent on oil. Take for example the Netherlands, which only produces 5.5% of its total energy needs from renewables (BTW, renewable energy production accounts for 10% of the USA's energy needs).

We are not going to change our usage of fossil fuels for some time as long as oil is plentiful and cheap and there are over 7 billion mouths to feed. The farm tractors and cargo ships of today don't run on batteries. Like I said, the change to alternate energy sources has to happen organically. When one resource starts to become economically depleted then people will naturally shift to another.

The most important thing humanity can right now is to curb its population growth. Good luck with this though as "it's every woman's right to have as many kids as she wants" and "it's the state's duty to pay for them."

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGeVPwGsgiI[/video]

[Metis]

saying youtube is a good source is basically ridiculing yourself

Correct reports based on good sources, whether in print or video form, are as good as the sources themselves for the purpose of general discussion. In fact, they sometimes can be better, especially for the layman who is not used to wading through original scientific papers.

And to say that YouTube can not be a good source of reliable information means that you are watching the wrong parts of YouTube. For example, there are excellent videos that will show you how to maintain and repair just about anything, build just about anything, grow crops and raise livestock, hunt and fish, butcher meat, cook, perform a plethora of science experiments, attend virtual lectures on just about any subject, explore the entire world virtually, learning about its geology, geography, biota and people, etc.

You just have to watch with a critical eye, and there are good courses on critical thinking there too.

[JakeyBoyTH]

Do you have any background in physics yourself then?

Also saying youtube is a good source is basically ridiculing yourself. Articles that are peer reviewed provided by scientific journals have authority. A wikipedia-page that draws from it also has some. Me explaining something about physics arguably has even more authority than a youtube video, which has literally none.

Other than that, I sleep at night so I will sleep now too. I will try to explain you things and link serious sources which all strongly disagree with your bullshit tomorrow.

Wikipedia == no.
Scientific Journal == if peer reviewed. You would be surprised.
Youtube Video == hella no.
Sleep == better than all of them.

That said, if it is by a reasonable author I think it's on an individual basis

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

I for one do not buy that oil is decomposed dinosaurs. They are drilling miles deep sometimes to get to it, in caches of very large quantities. I think its more like the lubrication system of the earth and probably has an important role to play.

As to the severity of CO2 threshold being played out, I do not know, its like just above 400 parts per million or something like that, most of the atmosphere is nitrogen, and we hardly talk about it. it seems rather insignificant percentage.

I am more concerned about pollution of water, which is why I am totally against pipelines no matter how dependent on oil we are. And I do think human actions are exacerbating climate change.

There are also methods of climate control, such as the use of chem trails and HAARP. which could be uses to further the narrative of climate change (which is historically believed to have cycles similar to what we are experiencing) to further tax and impose restrictions on people. If you want to talk about that narrative.

I will say though, I am in Michigan and its mid November and rather nice out, the tomatoes have been giving us more this fall than it did in summer.
My friend reports that in the past 20 years the ocean line by his house has risen 2 feet.

[Laurence Drake]

your entire post is just youtube videos wtf

serious question: can you actually read?

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

its oil

tell me how is it getting miles deep under rock?
since oil is less dense than water, why did that oil not appear on the surface with ground water maintaining a barrier?
how is it concentrated to the mass it is in certain areas? to be like literal oceans and lakes.
how is it so pure and not absorbed into the earth,
at what point in the earth can we see the transition of soil (also biomass) into oil?
how is it oil is stored in shale (rock) reserves?

maybe you should try wearing the tin foil hat for a while.

[Laurence Drake]

its oil

tell me how is it getting miles deep under rock?
since oil is less dense than water, why did that oil not appear on the surface with ground water maintaining a barrier?
how is it concentrated to the mass it is in certain areas? to be like literal oceans and lakes.
how is it so pure and not absorbed into the earth,
at what point in the earth can we see the transition of soil (also biomass) into oil?
how is it oil is stored in shale (rock) reserves?

maybe you should try wearing the tin foil hat for a while.

all good questions, none of them support your theory, none of them are even related to the fact that oil is organic biomass

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[howlingwolfpaw]

it very well may be, but im skeptical

[Metis]

I for one do not buy that oil is decomposed dinosaurs. They are drilling miles deep sometimes to get to it, in caches of very large quantities. I think its more like the lubrication system of the earth and probably has an important role to play.

Dinosaurs, no but oil and gas does come from living things. Many types of sedimentary rocks are comprised of tiny carbonate and silica sequestering biota such as diatoms, foraminiferans and coccolithophores. Each tiny organism, some so small that they can only be viewed under high magnification, contains natural organic material. Over millions of years, this material builds up until the pressure and temperature at depth "cooks" it until it turns into crude oil. The oil then slowly seeps through crevices and fractures in the rocks until it forms pools. Salt domes, where salt deposits from ancient dried seafloors are squeezed up through the overlying rock strata, are especially good places to look for oil.

How deep do the sedimentary layers go. Well, that depends. In some areas they are exposed, which is good for those of us who like to study geology. Some of these exposed strata even have oil seeps. In fact, the first oil well in America was drilled near one such seep. Other sedimentary strata can be miles deep. In Illinois an exploratory well was drilled to a depth of nearly three miles and they still hadn't reached the underlying igneous bedrock yet. Even if oil is found in deeper igneous strata it most likely gathered there after migrating from the sedimentary strata in which it originated or from the sedimentary strata itself being melted into igneous rock.

That even deep crude oil has a biotic origin can be seen it its chemistry. For instance, the carbon isotope ratios in oil are consistent with those of once living material and it also contains porphyrins and other chlorophyll breakdown products. Crude oil is found in igneous rock, especially that of volcanic origin, but this can be explained when you realize that much volcanism occurs at subduction zones, where the basaltic seafloor with its sedimentary overlay is dragged miles down below the continental crust. I'm not saying that oil cannot possibly form via purely abiotic processes (the basic hydrocarbon methane is abundant in the mantle and could be a precursor) but the vast majority that has been brought up from wells has clearly been shown to be of biotic origin.

[momuuu]

Alright, let's fully adress your post now. First of all, I want to state once again that your usage of 'sources' makes me die a little on the inside. I clicked on one of the youtube videos hoping to find some sources in that actual video but those were not present making it almost impossible to check any of the validity of the source itself. I will try to fact check most of these things through mostly scientific articles, something your poor sources unfortunately force me to do.

For the first part I want to ignore all the conspiracy stuff in your post and get to the actual arguments you present:
- Troposphere not getting as warm as predicted. I tried to look for any sources with regards to this statement, and there seems to be relatively little. I found this article which seems to imply the measurements and predictions match however: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 08087/full
- Rise in CO2 comes after the rise in temperature. Once again, I looked up a scientific article that is not really in agreement with your statement: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html
- Afterwards the video goes full retard and makes me cry. CO2 does have a correlation to temperature change, as it is indeed a greenhouse gas. The basis on which your great singular source dismisses the effect of CO2 on the temperature is very saddening. In the second source I linked, this is written: "These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."
Here is an article that suggests an increase in CO2 concentration will lead to an increase in global temperature: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _1_735-743
Here is yet another article that says greenhouse gases lead to global warming:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr= ... es&f=false
Another one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00115/full

Something else I found that I think is pretty interesting: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 2s2-3.html
The amount of CO2 in the air seems to come primarily from fossil fuels, which strongly suggests that humans are the cause of the rise in CO2 concentrations.

Now global warming is probably not going to be the end of the world, but it's not pleasant. Here's an article that sheds some light on some of the consequences of global warming: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704. ... me=enabled

Now, after getting the scientific response out of the way, I want to touch upon another part of your post. Seemingly your main points, as portrayed by your tl;dr, are of non-scientific nature, and mostly attack the statements around global warming and how the opposers are silenced and how politics interfere. Let me begin by once again touching upon the saddening lack of actual scientific sources and points you make with regards to global warming. The one video you linked seems to be in strong disagreement with any source you find googling basic words on google scholar, which makes me wonder if you ever even bothered fact-checking whatever you're told. Other than that, I do not believe the scientific journals silence voices. If you do a decent research with reproducable results, it will be published. Like I said in the other thread, things like gravity and new quantum mechanical discoveries are constantly being published, even if they oppose current theories. I do not see what the world is gaining from acting like global warming is real. Trying to fight global warming isn't positive for the economy, it costs money. It also doesn't make politicians more popular at all, because it just burdens the people. There are indeed rather unpleasant taxations with regards to reducing the amount of greenhouse gases, from which most governments do get money, but any politician succesfully claiming that global warming is not true and proposing to remove these taxations would be rather popular. It's not really a thing in politics to use that to gain votes, because most people have the ability to find serious sources and see that it's a very weird thing to claim.

[momuuu]

no ad homin pls

criticizing sources suck

It does. It's hard to have a scientific discussion without serious sources however.

[momuuu]

but global warming caused by mankind

You obviously have little background in science if you think that the factors I mentioned are "unrelated" and that all global warming is caused by humans. Yes, humans have contributed to global warming but it still follows a natural cycle none-the-less.

Carbon dioxide levels are greater now than in the past but this is only one of many factors that contribute to climate change. Do you think that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas? Would you care to guess what gas has the most contribution to the greenhouse effect? It's water vapor. Even if fossil fuels were to be banned tomorrow, something that's not going to happen, it will take years for biotic and abiotic means to begin drop C02 levels to what they were pre-industrial revolution.

I wanted to touch upon this point briefly. Yes, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. That's why the earth is relatively warm. The system is in relative balance, the warmer the planet gets the more heat it loses. Even though CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and not the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect, an increase in CO2 means more heat is contained which results in heating of the planet, as indicated by the sources I linked in the post in response to gendarme. The increase in temperature actually causes an increase in water vapor in the air, which is as much of a contribution to global warming (caused by the increase of CO2 itself) as the increase of CO2 on its own is (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf).

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Laurence Drake]

Seriously thought I don't have time or energy to make an intelligent post

me irl

[Metis]

The increase in temperature actually causes an increase in water vapor in the air, which is as much of a contribution to global warming (caused by the increase of CO2 itself) as the increase of CO2 on its own is (http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf).

Yes, this is part of the positive feedback mechanism I spoke of. According to ice-core data, CO2 levels do lag temperature increases, although not by as mush as previously thought. The lag is about 200 years, which is pretty much in line with what we have seen recently.

For the purposes of this discussion I will quote, rather than cite, original research sources:

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years” -- Sune Olander Rasmussen, Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen.

So the earth begins to warm naturally, due to the way it orbits around the sun and how it is tilted (we can discus this in depth later if you wish). This warming causes more CO2 and water vapor to be released into the atmosphere, which caused more heat from the sun to be trapped, resulting in more CO2 and water vapor, and so on. After the climate becomes more favorable for algae growth the carbon is then sequestered into biomass, which then formed detritus and eventually is compacted into rock strata. About this time the orbits have come around to a point where there is less sunlight available and things start to cool. Then, when things begin to warm many millennia later the rock eventually gets recycled into the mantle via the natural tectonic processes of the earth, releasing the sequestered carbon as CO2 and methane (another greenhouse gas) from volcanic activity, and the cycle begins again. It's a hugely complex and very interesting cycle. My ecology students loved learning about it.

Now along comes humanity, which has been part of the biotic world since life began over 3.5 billion years ago but we will call our ancestors "human" (for the purposes of this discussion) only when they began to do things that affect the carbon cycle that other animals don't, namely use fire. This began with Homo erectus about 400,000 years ago but didn't have much effect because populations were so small. Coal use during the Industrial Revolution was when humans really started to produce more CO2 than the biosphere could sequester. This energy resource led to a move from an agrarian lifestyle for most to an urban one. This move really took off after WWII when modern farming methods, backed by oil use in tractors, trucks etc., allowed farmers the ability to support hundreds of people each with the crops and livestock they produced. At the same time, medical research allowed people to live longer and reproduce more, which caused the human population to explode in numbers, which caused more fossil fuel use, which added to the positive feedback mechanism of climate change that was already there.

Humans are part of the biota and thus part of the natural cycle. However, what we are doing differently than has ever been done in the past is that we are causing the sequestered carbon to be released more rapidly. This isn't going to cause a run-away greenhouse effect such as seen on Venus, the Earth has too many buffer systems in place for that to happen, life being one of them. Things will eventually stabilize when humans use up most of the easily obtainable fossil fuel energy resources and shift to more renewable ones. This is going to occur in less than 500 years naturally (the US already produces 10% of its energy from renewable resources).

Remember that things change naturally. Polar bears are having a hard time with the loss of ice in the arctic. However, polar bears haven't been around forever, fossil evidence shows that they evolved from brown bears about the time humans were becoming behaviorally modern. 99% of all species that have ever existed went extinct before modern humans came onto the scene. Nothing is set in stone in the natural world, for even the stone itself is recycled.

[Gendarme]

- Troposphere not getting as warm as predicted. I tried to look for any sources with regards to this statement, and there seems to be relatively little. I found this article which seems to imply the measurements and predictions match however: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 08087/full

Here's a quote from the abstract; notice the highlights:

The change in the extratropical circulation under global warming is studied using the climate models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report. The IPCC models predict a strengthening and a poleward shift of the tropospheric zonal jets in response to global warming. The change in zonal jets is also accompanied by a strengthening and a poleward and upward shift of transient kinetic energy and momentum flux. Similar changes in circulation are simulated by a simple dry general circulation model (GCM) when the height of the tropopause is raised.

And with that, all credibility goes out the window. Complex models consist of many variables which can be tweaked unnoticably. Slightly tweaking each and every variable (with trial and error) until you produce the result you want is certainly possible, and seems to be common practice as pointed out by Professor Carl Wunsch here (at 50:50). The fact that the models used are those of the IPCC makes it all even more uncredible, as IPCC is politically motivated to support global warming as I have pointed out.

- Rise in CO2 comes after the rise in temperature. Once again, I looked up a scientific article that is not really in agreement with your statement: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html

Here's a quote from the abstract; notice the highlights:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Apparently after this study the "relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear", because they say this is only "in part" explained by the study. However, I don't think this is even explained in part. When you "construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records", it is possible to cherry pick those 80 proxies (i.e. ignore the proxies whose data you don't like) to produce the result you want (in much the same way Ancel Keys cherry picked his data to show a correlation between fat consumption and cardiovascular disease, which the whole world adopted with the help of political forces). I remember having heard numerous accusations of fraudulent data over the years - here is one of them. Statistics is the tool of the Devil, and this study is solely based on that and computer simulations, which is already discussed above.

- Afterwards the video goes full retard and makes me cry. CO2 does have a correlation to temperature change, as it is indeed a greenhouse gas. The basis on which your great singular source dismisses the effect of CO2 on the temperature is very saddening. In the second source I linked, this is written: "These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."
Here is an article that suggests an increase in CO2 concentration will lead to an increase in global temperature: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _1_735-743
Here is yet another article that says greenhouse gases lead to global warming:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr= ... es&f=false
Another one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00115/full

Note that even these three articles all draw their conclusions from simulations.

Moving on, nobody ever denies the correlation between CO2 and temperature. As Al Gore stated, even a child can see that they are correlated. However, the point is that it is mainly the rise in temperature causing the rise in CO2, and not the other way. I think you mistyped and didn't mean correlation, but causation of temperature rise by a rise in CO2. Greenhouse gases are discussed in the documentary, and nobody denies the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Richard Lindzen and Christopher Monckton have numerous times admitted that a rise in CO2 while keeping everything else constant is almost certainly going to increase the temperature, but the point is that the climate is almost completely controlled by solar activity and the magnetic field of the moon, and the slight increase of 0.03% CO2 to 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and probably not even noticeable in the measurements of the temperature as shown by these graphs:

I do not believe the scientific journals silence voices. If you do a decent research with reproducable results, it will be published.

That's why I used the word "effectively". You are probably allowed to publish (but maybe not, I haven't investigated the issue), but the government subsidizes global warming research immensely as pointed out here (at 45:14). Allegedly, scientist taking a stand against the global warming hype are rejected funds because of that, as Roy Spencer points out here (at 1:01:51). Apparently John Coleman and his group of 30,000 scientists standing against the global warming hype are rejected by almost every cable network as pointed out here (at 0:52). And the general ignoration, patronization, and ridiculing of anyone who questions the alleged consensus (including me, but thankfully it is less effective on a forum) makes it impossible for them to bring the matter up for discussion, and are thus silenced.

I do not see what the world is gaining from acting like global warming is real. Trying to fight global warming isn't positive for the economy, it costs money. It also doesn't make politicians more popular at all, because it just burdens the people. There are indeed rather unpleasant taxations with regards to reducing the amount of greenhouse gases, from which most governments do get money, but any politician succesfully claiming that global warming is not true and proposing to remove these taxations would be rather popular. It's not really a thing in politics to use that to gain votes, because most people have the ability to find serious sources and see that it's a very weird thing to claim.

The world is obviously not gaining from it, but the heads of society certainly are, and they are paying a lot of money to the scientists on their side, so they are too. It is true that any politician successfully debunking global warming would be popular, but that is much easier said than done. The power of media, and the power of rhetoric is extremely strong.

I don't have a hypothesis on what exactly the goal of all this is. Perhaps it is a means to hinder the third world from developing. Perhaps it is a step in the direction of globalization (e.g. facilitate the progression of TPP, TTIP). Perhaps it is a way for the oil cartel to keep their empire and/or keep the price articially high. Related to that, perhaps it is a way of protecting the petrodollar. Perhaps it is nothing but a simple means to impose more regulations on people, and increase taxation for higher revenue (no, taxation is not merely redistribution of money among the people).

You are asking the wrong question. The world is not gaining from this; the people in power are.

I have already said that I don't think there's much point in us going through different papers and trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong, because I think it is an impossible task for the non-physicist. I think the best we can do is to ask for a debate, and let the scientists jump at each other (and as I've also said earlier, I don't think there will be many debate-willing scientists on the global warming side). However, since you seem interested in papers, I will share some with you. However, I haven't read them myself:

- Tropospheric temperatures
- Tropospheric temperatures
- CO2 lagging behind temperature
- Solar activity, cosmic rays, temperature

These are all among the top results on Google Scholar. I don't know how you could have trouble finding them.

[Laurence Drake]

- Troposphere not getting as warm as predicted. I tried to look for any sources with regards to this statement, and there seems to be relatively little. I found this article which seems to imply the measurements and predictions match however: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 08087/full

Here's a quote from the abstract; notice the highlights:

The change in the extratropical circulation under global warming is studied using the climate models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report. The IPCC models predict a strengthening and a poleward shift of the tropospheric zonal jets in response to global warming. The change in zonal jets is also accompanied by a strengthening and a poleward and upward shift of transient kinetic energy and momentum flux. Similar changes in circulation are simulated by a simple dry general circulation model (GCM) when the height of the tropopause is raised.

And with that, all credibility goes out the window. Complex models consist of many variables which can be tweaked unnoticably. Slightly tweaking each and every variable (with trial and error) until you produce the result you want is certainly possible, and seems to be common practice as pointed out by Professor Carl Wunsch here (at 50:50). The fact that the models used are those of the IPCC makes it all even more uncredible, as IPCC is politically motivated to support global warming as I have pointed out.

- Rise in CO2 comes after the rise in temperature. Once again, I looked up a scientific article that is not really in agreement with your statement: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10915.html

Here's a quote from the abstract; notice the highlights:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Apparently after this study the "relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear", because they say this is only "in part" explained by the study. However, I don't think this is even explained in part. When you "construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records", it is possible to cherry pick those 80 proxies (i.e. ignore the proxies whose data you don't like) to produce the result you want (in much the same way Ancel Keys cherry picked his data to show a correlation between fat consumption and cardiovascular disease, which the whole world adopted with the help of political forces). I remember having heard numerous accusations of fraudulent data over the years - here is one of them. Statistics is the tool of the Devil, and this study is solely based on that and computer simulations, which is already discussed above.

- Afterwards the video goes full retard and makes me cry. CO2 does have a correlation to temperature change, as it is indeed a greenhouse gas. The basis on which your great singular source dismisses the effect of CO2 on the temperature is very saddening. In the second source I linked, this is written: "These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."
Here is an article that suggests an increase in CO2 concentration will lead to an increase in global temperature: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _1_735-743
Here is yet another article that says greenhouse gases lead to global warming:
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr= ... es&f=false
Another one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00115/full

Note that even these three articles all draw their conclusions from simulations.

Moving on, nobody ever denies the correlation between CO2 and temperature. As Al Gore stated, even a child can see that they are correlated. However, the point is that it is mainly the rise in temperature causing the rise in CO2, and not the other way. I think you mistyped and didn't mean correlation, but causation of temperature rise by a rise in CO2. Greenhouse gases are discussed in the documentary, and nobody denies the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Richard Lindzen and Christopher Monckton have numerous times admitted that a rise in CO2 while keeping everything else constant is almost certainly going to increase the temperature, but the point is that the climate is almost completely controlled by solar activity and the magnetic field of the moon, and the slight increase of 0.03% CO2 to 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and probably not even noticeable in the measurements of the temperature as shown by these graphs:

I do not believe the scientific journals silence voices. If you do a decent research with reproducable results, it will be published.

That's why I used the word "effectively". You are probably allowed to publish (but maybe not, I haven't investigated the issue), but the government subsidizes global warming research immensely as pointed out here (at 45:14). Allegedly, scientist taking a stand against the global warming hype are rejected funds because of that, as Roy Spencer points out here (at 1:01:51). Apparently John Coleman and his group of 30,000 scientists standing against the global warming hype are rejected by almost every cable network as pointed out here (at 0:52). And the general ignoration, patronization, and ridiculing of anyone who questions the alleged consensus (including me, but thankfully it is less effective on a forum) makes it impossible for them to bring the matter up for discussion, and are thusly silenced.

I do not see what the world is gaining from acting like global warming is real. Trying to fight global warming isn't positive for the economy, it costs money. It also doesn't make politicians more popular at all, because it just burdens the people. There are indeed rather unpleasant taxations with regards to reducing the amount of greenhouse gases, from which most governments do get money, but any politician succesfully claiming that global warming is not true and proposing to remove these taxations would be rather popular. It's not really a thing in politics to use that to gain votes, because most people have the ability to find serious sources and see that it's a very weird thing to claim.

The world is obviously not gaining from it, but the heads of society certainly are, and they are paying a lot of money to the scientists on their side, so they are too. It is true that any politician successfully debunking global warming would be popular, but that is much easier said than done. The power of media, and the power of rhetoric is extremely strong.

I don't have a hypothesis on what exactly the goal of all this is. Perhaps it is a means to hinder the third world from developing. Perhaps it is a step in the direction of globalization (e.g. facilitate the progression of TPP, TTIP). Perhaps it is a way for the oil cartel to keep their empire and/or keep the price articially high. Related to that, perhaps it is a way of protecting the petrodollar. Perhaps it is nothing but a simple means to impose more regulations on people, and increase taxation for higher revenue (no, taxation is not merely redistribution of money among the people).

You are asking the wrong question. The world is not gaining from this; the people in power are.

I have already said that I don't think there's much point in us going through different papers and trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong, because I think it is an impossible task for the non-physicist. I think the best we can do is to ask for a debate, and let the scientists jump at each other (and as I've also said earlier, I don't think there will be many debate-willing scientists on the global warming side). However, since you seem interested in papers, I will share some with you. However, I haven't read them myself:

- Tropospheric temperatures
- Tropospheric temperatures
- CO2 lagging behind temperature
- Solar activity, cosmic rays, temperature

These are all among the top results on Google Scholar. I don't know how you could have trouble finding them kinds of studies.

Unfortunately, there has been no appreciable change in solar activity over the past few decades, so the time you spent writing that long post was wasted.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/09 ... 4396v1.pdf

[Dolan]

Stop arguing over this. Some people won't get it / agree until all the planet's oceans start boiling and evaporate.

You're not gonna get any agreement over this, it's not a debate based on reason. It's based on redneckness.

The rednecks will never let some smart-ass scientists tell them how to run their country. There's nothing that guns and the bible can't solve.