Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[stickstones]

^^^
Holy shit! WE are the problem. We all need to stop vaping right now! Or maybe just tax it heavily.


And no, camper, it is pretty silent around here.

 

[Happycamper]

^^^
Holy shit! WE are the problem. We all need to stop vaping right now! Or maybe just tax it heavily.


And no, camper, it is pretty silent around here.

They might be thinking that the warmer world actually causes less water vapor, and thats why we are not warming now. So that could mean we have a safety mechanism which will stop us getting too warm.

This is coming from solomon and NOAA she was the co chair of the 2007 ipcc report.

Soloman did point out that the research does allude to human emissions having a much smaller role in climate change than previously thought...

More breaking news....(waiting for a better source) effects of co2 on temperature claims are IPCC exaggerated 7 fold.

 

[stickstones]

Sorry to post a new thread, and Vtac please merge it eventually. I imagine (because of my excessive posting) a lot of people won't see the normal thread.

There is so much stuff coming out in the UK, Europe and other countires. Ive heard that you are not hearing it all.
Please check this link and look through the information. http://climatedepot.com/

THIS is what I have been hoping would happen. Someone finally went out and is investigating the claims instead of just pushing legislation through without thinking!

 

[Lo]

I'm sorry to hear that Lo. Has your cold snap gone now? I had heard about iguanas falling from trees (but they are not native to the area I read), but I didnt know other animals were effected as badly.

Our freeze is over now. Yes, there were iguanas falling from the trees (stunned, not dead). People were picking them up, putting in boxes and then trying to drive them somewhere when they would wake up from their slumber Fun rides I'm guessing!

Our news is so sanitized here Happy! We do not see much of what the world sees in papers/on tv. I talk to friends from other countries, read international sites, etc. to get real world news since ours is spoonfed to us here.

I've read/heard so much conficting information that honestly it's hard to know what is true or not. I have always believed though that we have to be part of the problem and also that the earth runs in a cycles. I know nothing for sure.

 

[Lo]

Thank you for the link Happy.

 

[AGBeer]

THIS is what I have been hoping would happen. Someone finally went out and is investigating the claims instead of just pushing legislation through without thinking!

Kind of like our war on drugs?

 

[stickstones]

^^^
absolutely

 

[Mckdenton]

thanks for the link!

 

[SSS]

happycamper, out of curiosity...what is your educational background on climate science?

 

[Happycamper]

Found the link to the Solomon report
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488

Edit this is the link to the NOAA site about it
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

 

[chucku]

sss,

Since happycamper is quoting a respected professional in the field, his credentials (or lack thereof) are not relevant.

 

[SSS]

oh, they are very relevant.

 

[Happycamper]

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/nature-carbon-cycle-feedback-is-80.html
I think this is about the other report in Nature Science mag.

Nature: carbon cycle feedback is 80% weaker than advertised

In this weekly dose of peer-reviewed literature denying the "climate consensus", we look at a paper in a journal called Nature. David Frank, Jan Esper, Christoph Raible, Ulf Bntgen, Valerie Trouet, Benjamin Stocker, and Fortunat Joos (a mostly Swiss team) just published a new article

Im trying to find another report i have heard that has just come out that says there was 4 times co2 than industrial times whilst there was an ice age. But i can't find that one, and it wasnt from the best source.

 

[stickstones]

oh, they are very relevant.

What are yours?

 

[SSS]

oh, they are very relevant.

What are yours?

interesting that you are more interested in mine than happycampers (the guy posting all of the global warming stuff). before i answer that question tell me why my background would be more relevant than someone who appears to have a political ax to grind?

 

[Happycamper]

oh, they are very relevant.

What are yours?

interesting that you are more interested in mine than happycampers (the guy posting all of the global warming stuff). before i answer that question tell me why my background would be more relevant than someone who appears to have a political ax to grind?

SSS this is a really important time with some really important pieces of news, and I had heard stories that US media was not reporting it. Thats why I gave you the link, it has all types of sources, but the UK mainstream media is on that link. Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Mail are not trashy newspapers.

What is happening now is important no matter what you believe. I agree with Stickstones at least it's going to have to be looked at and the way the IPCC works..

But on top of that there are a number of new reports out that that are possibly going to be the beginning of possibly science changing a few views.


Edit: the one below is the one from Nature about 80% less feedback i've already done link
This is another paper just out: One paper concerns the effect of a warming climate on oceans and other sources of carbon dioxide on Earth, and found they will be slower to release more CO2, and thus do less to amplify warming than previously expected.

 

[stickstones]

oh, they are very relevant.

What are yours?

interesting that you are more interested in mine than happycampers (the guy posting all of the global warming stuff). before i answer that question tell me why my background would be more relevant than someone who appears to have a political ax to grind?

They are equally relevant. The credentials of those who question are just as important as those who proclaim.

 

[SSS]

What are yours?

interesting that you are more interested in mine than happycampers (the guy posting all of the global warming stuff). before i answer that question tell me why my background would be more relevant than someone who appears to have a political ax to grind?

They are equally relevant. The credentials of those who question are just as important as those who proclaim.

hmmm....i don't see you putting this question to anyone else so there's more than just a bit of insincerity in your statement.

fyi, i am not a climate researcher. i do have a b.s. in earth science so earth processes and scientific journals are not foreign to me. i can read through the bullshit pretty quickly and any grand proclamations coming out of newspapers or the title of this thread (now merged with the existing thread but it claimed global warming was about to be debunked) are just marketing and hardly factual.

 

[stickstones]

^^^
You are the only one to pose this question, thus you are the one I responded to in that regard.

Given your credentials, you may be just the person to help us sift through the links camper is providing. I hope you read them and give us some insight.

 

[Happycamper]

Yes please do SSS, The one about 80% less co2 feedback is a bit of a head scratcher.

 

[Happycamper]

This is off the NOAA site

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

So therefore it is effectively saying the co2 effect on temperature looks likely to be 30% less than was previously thought.

 

[vtac]

Vtac: Is this enough for you to take as proving your claim false?
http://climatedepot.com/

What claim? A poorly put together climate conspiracy clearinghouse website doesn't really impress me. You seem to have glazed over my test for falsifiability the last 3 times but I will post it again at the end of this post. Feel free to post yours. Durden very eloquently explained why your previous attempts were failures.

You and I are the same in that deep down we both hope climate change turns out to not be as serious as predicted. The difference is, I look to the most credible science currently available while you grasp onto anything that supports what you want to hear with no regard for credibility and ignore anything to the contrary. By definition you are being unreasonable, so trying to reason with you here gets old pretty fast. Do you post on any serious climate science websites?

The fact of the matter is: No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. New information is becoming available all the time and that's a good thing. But you can't keep screaming that the major scientific organizations are jumping to conclusions and then turn around and instantly proclaim every new piece of info touted by the deniers as a smoking gun against climate change. Unreasonable.

Here's an interesting article, it's unrelated to climate change but the parallels are easy to see: Why do people often vote against their own interests?. tl;dr: People hate being told what's good for them and are often convinced through stories rather than facts, even if the end result affects them negatively.

Here are some interesting links about the skeptic movement: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_change/science/skeptics.asp

Let's get back to basics here. In simple terms, what is your position on climate change? Do you honestly believe that you, random dude on a vaporizer forum, have a better understanding of the science than thousands of highly trained scientists from the most prestigious institutions on earth, and have uncovered fundamental errors which invalidate peer-reviewed research, the findings of which have been multiply confirmed and stood the test of time to become the most widely held consensus of the relevant scientific community?

I'm glad you like the new thread title. If we aren't having fun here something isn't right. This is a vaporizer forum after all.

Oh, and my test for falsifiability? My claim is based on very thorough and broadly-based research, and so would need similarly thorough and broadly-based disproof. The main lynchpin would need to be an answer to the question: How could the most trusted and established scientific organizations in the world get it so wrong?

I would need to see persistent and thorough evidence along multiple lines that the both the scientific processes of AAAS and NAS as organizations and the careers of a significant number of their most trusted and established individuals had been corrupted or brilliantly mislead by a tremendously well-organized covert campaign of manipulation. The reporting of the evidence would need to be picked up by the major news networks and hold up under scrutiny for a long period of timesay at least a year.

It would need to be an expose of significantly greater caliber, extent, and expense than any other in history, because the conspiracy would have included more individuals by an order of magnitude than any other cover-up or conspiracy, ever. Remember that AAAS has 144,000 members, and the NAS has been around since 1863. In effect, it would need to be of significant enough import to damage the credibility of the human endeavor of science itself for 100 yearsessentially a paradigm shift away from the trust we place in science by using so much modern technology.

The claim of incompetence or corruption on the part of these organizations and the majority of the individuals comprising them is extraordinary enough, that I would need extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary cover-up. Thats an extraordinary number of extraordinaries. But it isin principlepossible. Which makes my claim falsifiable, and therefore, not dismissable.

 

[Happycamper]

This is off the NOAA site

An increase in stratospheric water vapor in the 1990s likely had the opposite effect of increasing the rate of warming observed during that time by about 30 percent, the authors found.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

So therefore it is effectively saying the co2 effect on temperature looks likely to be 30% less than was previously thought.

I'm sorry Vtac but in the words of Victoria Beckham 'This is Fucking Major'.

 

[stickstones]

I think when the dust settles, and we may all be dead by then, it will be evident that there were truths and errors on both sides. My guess is that there is a global warming trend going on right now, but I think it is a smaller cycle. I don't see how our influence can thwart an oncoming ice age.

If there is accurate and conclusive science in favor of global warming, then shame on the politicians for cluttering it up by promoting claims that the glaciers will be melted by 2035, etc. If global warming is happening, why fuck up the argument by including flimsy and fear-inducing claims? Because people in power can use that fear to move the masses in their desired direction, that's why.

In the end, our entire existence will be forgotten and contained in several inches of dirt many feet beneath the surface of the earth. This planet and nature will recover just fine after we are gone. All we're doing in the meantime is fucking ourselves.

vtac, with regard to your post, I had some thoughts. I agree the climatedepot website looks cheesy. I don't know anything about these other sources camper is quoting: Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Mail. He says they are not trashy. Do you have an opinion?

You linked to wikipedia. I don't have an opinion on wiki or the link you posted, but I know that it is not a credible enough source for me to use in my professional reports...so I can't say it trumps any of camper's sources.

I don't know anything about David Suzuki, but the link you provided starts with some of the examples of climate change that we are now seeing in a different light. I quote "The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought." The glacier thing has been dramatically overstated (not by the individual scientists, but by politicians and the IPCC) as shown earlier in this thread, as well as record low temps recently recorded.

The healthcare article is pretty simplistic, as I have my own reasons for being against the health care bill that were not addressed in it.

You also said "Do you post on any serious climate science websites?" Very interesting, and I would love to see what a response in that crowd would be like! Can you suggest any?

 

[Happycamper]

Times , Guardian, Telegraph, Mail are our main fleet street newspapers. (there are a few others but quoted are the main ones)That link i do agree was a bit trashy as well. However i did go through just about everything on there, and although I had doubts about certain sources and they may have added spin, I found very very little that didnt come from a fact or decent source. There was maybe a couple of things i had issues with.

Any way those papers are mainstream media, and the Guardian seems to have changed sides. (as in the sceptical things they are posting now)

Also think about why suddenly 4 reports are coming out that seem to cast doubt on some really fundemental areas of AGW science. Can you almost feel the scientists backing off quietly to save credibility?