• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

An inconvenient truth



That documentary covered some good topics. IPCC, how CO2 increases lag behind increases in temperature, The omission of the sun being a factor in global warming climate models lol,funding, politics ect.
I did not realize humans are not even the largest contributors of CO2!, More propaganda I learned when I was younger that I need to clear out of my head, and I though I was doing well.
This video is a bit older now, In my opinion, if brought up to date would have even more evidence available for falsifying CO2 causes climate change, like the global warming pause for example, or all the examples of manipulated data or outright fabrication.
Swindle, good title.
 
When "scientific researchers" get fixated on an idea they tend to only seek a confirmation of their ideas. This is a natural human thing.
"Scientific discipline" --in research-- can be a high hurdle for some.
 
I disagree that the scientific enterprise and scientists in general are fixated on pushing an agenda that is not supported by the data. It is a large, evolving, and self correcting system. The individuals who produce those counter arguments are pushing an agenda.

Leads and lags are not a problem if they can be explained by the operation of the system, but they are a focus for scientific research into these topics.
 
Not exactly true.....it probably would happen anyway over 10's of thousands of years. Humans are just speeding it up a lot.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Show me your proof that humans are speeding it up. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and is a complex environment that does not suddenly change as a result of any event, much less the short existence of mankind on this planet.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. It is true there is no way to prove it, but there is also no way to prove that the sun is where it is. Proof has a higher bar than overwhelming. We are f&%$#ed in my opinion and just speeding our way all the faster there in the name of making money.
Bunch of crap. Where's the proof? You said that the "evidence is pretty overwhelming" and in you next sentence you say that "It is true there is no way to prove it...".
 
Last edited:
Here is some light reading >>>>>>
Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, it is wise to base decisions and policy on hard fact.

Here are some crucial, verifiable facts - with citations - about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational. And please feel free to copy/paste this comment wherever you think it will do the most good.

The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here's why:

Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.039% of the atmosphere[1]. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 15 degrees Centigrade, or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade, perhaps much under. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK "http://www.physicalgeograph..." http://www.physicalgeograph...

[2] ibid.

[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK "http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con..." http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con.... See p. 4.The 0 - 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK "http://webbook.nist.gov/" http://webbook.nist.gov/

[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa..." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa.... The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

[7] History of Earth’s Climate. http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-...This account was written by someone for whom English was a second language and focuses on Scandinavia, but it draws together evidence from around the world, and provides insight into the challenges of judging temperatures in earlier geological times.[8] New York Nature - The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.ne...

[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK "https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs..." http://www.azgs.az.gov/ariz... This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C....

See also HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/..." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... and

HYPERLINK "http://online.wsj.com/artic..." http://online.wsj.com/artic... and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009..." http://www.nytimes.com/2009.... Et al.

ADDENDUM

What initially troubled me, years ago, was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused(!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks "Climategate" to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW "cause" has taken on a life of its own.

Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand "Progressive" ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations wheb drawing conclusions.
 
Wow....that's a lot to digest.
I will make it simple.
To prove Man is causing global warming just conduct an experiment in which Man is removed from the environment.
Oops! Its impossible to do! Plus an observed experiment doing do-if it was possible- would take centuries. Remember we are talking observed data, not theoretical or computer generated.
So there is no proof and never will be proof of Man causing global warming.
Its all a wealth redistribution scheme.
 
You can sum it up this way because that's what this thread is about: The new "Green" is the old "Red". It's all about redistribution of wealth and socialism and/or communism. It's all about an unscientific, lie of an argument bent on punishing developed, thriving, free market economies like the U.S. It's all political, pushed by a political party and ideology that hates this country and how it has developed. There is no amount of credible, empirical data that exists to support this hair-brained notion that man-made global warming is occurring. It's all smoke-and-mirrors crap using computer models and projections that are irrelevant given the age of the Earth and the natural cycles that the Earth goes through. NOAA, NASA, EPA, IPCC, UN...name your alphabet soup government or international agency and there you'll have a co-conspirator in this massive global warming hoax.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying anyone who disagrees is wrong?


Someone that "disagrees" with an idea/theory etc. Is implying that they have contrasting knowledge/information about it.
Further--it implies that another's thinking/belief is their correct reality. The earth used to be flat. Today there are still those that "disagree"
To say -I disagree- is like saying you are wrong and I am right.

Sometimes the accurate meaning of words gets in the way of communicating.
A belief in a theory is quite different from -knowing- how something works.
 
So....to say global warming isn't man made...based on factual data is wrong?
 
So....to say global warming isn't man made...based on factual data is wrong?


The root question of the debate is about what "factual data" is in the mind of the "fact gatherers"?

A "fact" by definition is indisputable. When two "facts" (for example) tell two different stories about an idea/theory. They cancel each other out as being true "facts"
What is left is two unproven theories.

My intent here is commenting about proper communication tools. (words and what they mean) It is also about minds that can close doors to thinking and observing.
It is not about telling anyone that I have the final answer about anything I see when I look out the window.:drinks:

I recall having frustrating conversations with an older colleague of mine (my foreman) when I was an apprentice at my craft.
One day he got in my face and was red and blubbering in frustration with my not accepting everything he says. He said something about the/my-- gall to even question why the sun comes up in the morning.
All I had to say was--My understanding is that the sun does indeed NOT rise in the morning. The earth turns making the "sunrise" to be an illusion. I had to step back to avoid a punch from this jackass.
 
Last edited:
There are facts and there are "facts".
It seems "facts" are used to further the mmgw agenda.
Facts are used to disprove it.
 
I heard the earth is only about 9 thousand years old and all this stuff that supposedly took place millions of years ago is all bs.
 
Blah. Blah. Blah. Show me your proof that humans are speeding it up. The Earth is over 4 billion years old and is a complex environment that does not suddenly change as a result of any event, much less the short existence of mankind on this planet.
Nevermind…...I'm one of "them"... you know, the guys that are paid by "the deep state" to run the world. Go back to your twitter feed idiot
 
"Facts" (in the misuse of the meaning of the word) are created every day. They tend to be tools used as one uses a comforter when the weather turns cold.

Real problems come when a person or group try to enforce thoughts and ideas on others.
I get the compassion and well-meaning involved. But I also am offended by the arrogant thinking that moves us as a species to the point of killing each other for each other's wellbeing.

History is filled with mass killings that are based on different thinking/observations of the "apparent reality".

In my simple mind--I am stuck with thinking there is only one "reality".
I am inclined to keep it (my reality) to myself to save being trashed for not adhering to -well-meaning others- that might feel sad for me.

In "fact":)--I will step out a bit further-- and expect that some will think they know what my reality is. They will make presumptions about it. Those presumptions will be what they call "FACTS"--:D
 
Last edited:
From US Measured Temperature Data-set 1895 to Present

Not much of a trend, the 1930s were much hotter on average.
Mean1895-2018.png

Across the US we have less days over 90 degrees
DaysAbove901895-2018.png

...and less days below 20
Nightsbelow201895-2018.png


It seems the US has less extreme temperatures on average.

Sea Ice Volume and total extent might be somewhat down from their magical year of 1979 when it was at a large peak, though over the last 10 years Arctic Ice Volume has increased.

SeaIceVolume.jpg


Digging up an old graph you can see why all the "Climate Scientists" like to use 1979 for Arctic sea ice, they claim that's when these records started.
ArticSeaIceExtent.gif
 
From US Measured Temperature Data-set 1895 to Present

Not much of a trend, the 1930s were much hotter on average.
View attachment 690339
Across the US we have less days over 90 degrees
View attachment 690340
...and less days below 20
View attachment 690342

It seems the US has less extreme temperatures on average.

Sea Ice Volume and total extent might be somewhat down from their magical year of 1979 when it was at a large peak, though over the last 10 years Arctic Ice Volume has increased.

View attachment 690343

Digging up an old graph you can see why all the "Climate Scientists" like to use 1979 for Arctic sea ice, they claim that's when these records started.
View attachment 690344


Stuff like this just makes the eyes glaze over from those that have already planted thoughts.

I can see it now---these are all old and biased graphs.:eek:---What we all need is a -new-"investigation".:rolleyes: Start from scratch--let us all go around the block again. Just to be absolutely sure. This time --let's appoint someone that will get to the final answer/ the rest of the story/ the real truth/ actual facts.--It should not take long to do this.:lol:
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top