Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

Naw, the IPCC's models don't require a negative six trillion degree anomaly.

(The IPCC BTW doesn't have a model, it doesn't have any scientists..)

However, it does have predetermined conclusions.

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

However, it does have predetermined conclusions.

It assembles the conclusions from tens of thousands of scientists across the planet, that's a pretty neat trick to manipulate them all...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ya well the second link I provided suggested at the end of it that that was an arguement against his work. The problem with that argument is that Spencer's data is directly observable wereas any historical data relies on indirect observations.

Indirect observations (proxies) are still observations of real physical data and still need to be accounted for.

Inductive science is still science, and all science (and any subjective experience) is inductive at some level.. even seeing things with your own eyes you're still just inducing an event based on the electromagnetic rays that are interacting with things, or touch is just inducing things based on the electromagnetic interaction of atoms.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Indirect observations (proxies) are still observations of real physical data and still need to be accounted for.

Inductive science is still science, and all science (and any subjective experience) is inductive at some level.. even seeing things with your own eyes you're still just inducing an event based on the electromagnetic rays that are interacting with things, or touch is just inducing things based on the electromagnetic interaction of atoms.

Yes everything is inductive at some level. But in this case one requires a lot more of it then another. Also, it will be a lot easier to spot a flaw in the gathering or interpretating of NASA's data. In fact if no valid error is found in Dr Spencer's research I would think it might be prudent to rethink how the historical data is interpreted.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by photon

It assembles the conclusions from tens of thousands of scientists across the planet, that's a pretty neat trick to manipulate them all...

Not really. That's why there's so gosh darn many contributors and takes so long to compile. There's alot of environmentalist propaganda and unsubstantiated rumors to amalgamate into one big official UN document.

[photon]

Yeah that must be it. Thanks for the reminder why arguing against the conspiracy theory is fruitless.

Anyway, a more detailed view of the paper and why they think it's flawed:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/

And a few other views

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...r-roy-spencer/

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/...bunked-or-not/

That's interesting, I didn't know Spencer was the source of the "satellites show it isn't warming" myth.

[Thor]

So interesting how Koch's funded study that Mueller the climate skeptic ran has its results out and no one is reporting it. Can you imagine all the capitalization and !!!'s if it said the opposite by Hoz?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011...ange-video.php

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Thor

So interesting how Koch's funded study that Mueller the climate skeptic ran has its results out and no one is reporting it. Can you imagine all the capitalization and !!!'s if it said the opposite by Hoz?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011...ange-video.php

Treehugger.com reporting a news story on the Daily Show where they comment on a study. Seems hardly earth shattering. Nothing in it can confirm the creditability of the study or its conclusions. Also the issue hasn't been "climate change" for a long time. The issue is "man caused climate change". Is it happening at all?

[troutman]

Jon Stewart Rips Media For Ignoring 'Climategate' Debunking, Covering McRib Instead

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1034792.html

Fox News pundits and conservative analysts on all the 24-hour news networks had a field day proclaiming that these emails proved global warming was a fraud. And it worked, too. As Stewart pointed out, studies show the amount of people who acknowledge global warming dropped nearly 20% since the emails were leaked.

Given the media circus that was Climategate, Stewart was shocked to learn that a study done by a noted climate change skeptic AND funded by Tea Party oil tycoons the Koch brothers which intended to disprove global warming recently reaffirmed the science behind it. What shocked him even more? How little coverage the findings, printed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, received compared to that of McDonald's "McRib."

[SebC]

Hey now! The McRib is serious business.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Treehugger.com reporting a news story on the Daily Show where they comment on a study. Seems hardly earth shattering. Nothing in it can confirm the creditability of the study or its conclusions. Also the issue hasn't been "climate change" for a long time. The issue is "man caused climate change". Is it happening at all?

I look at it this way, say you have a deteriorating lung condition. Now it could be caused by a number of things but if you are a smoker, it would be a good idea if you quit.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

So interesting how Koch's funded study that Mueller the climate skeptic ran has its results out and no one is reporting it. Can you imagine all the capitalization and !!!'s if it said the opposite by Hoz?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011...ange-video.php

What is so ground breaking about this?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't believe anyone has claimed that the climate has not/does not change. Of course it changes. The debate lies in the accusation that human carbon emissions are responsible for this, and that there will be some catastrophic effects in the future.

I find it odd that people blame the Koch's and "big oil" for using their influence to "deny" AGW, when there are more powerful business/private interests promoting AGW and the cap/trade carbon tax system.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I look at it this way, say you have a deteriorating lung condition. Now it could be caused by a number of things but if you are a smoker, it would be a good idea if you quit.

Yes but, we both know that smoking is a leading contributer to lung cancer. Carbon emission's are not known to cause global warming. That is just a theory with a lot of detractors. Weather cycles caused by the Sun's activity and such are known to effect the weather. If natural causes can explain the recent weather trends than lets go with that.

Also, quitting smoking at the very least saves money and improves breathing. Compare that to the costs of doing what advocates of carbon caused global warming say would be the neccessary fix.

[mikey_the_redneck]

nm

[Kipperriffic]

First of all, my personal opinion is that there is no concrete conclusion about if this global "change" is in fact caused by humans, and secondly, should we even be concerned about it. And there are much more important environmental topics that get overlooked by this "global warming debate"

But what I really have problem with is that politicians (Canadian and US), use "climate change", or "global warning"...whatever you want to call it... solely to appeal to their base. (some are just dumb like Al Gore who do it purely for sensationalism)
Why shouldn't they, you ask? Well I think there is a fundamental problem with govt. being the body that makes decisions about things like this. They should have no involvement in this. They can't impose on us (which includes private industries along with me and you) any tax to "combat" climate change. The Tax is the fundamental flaw

A little off topic but I think ANY tax should not be automatic unless we sign off on it. Tax should only be mandatory for things like Defense, Infrastructure, Education, and HealthCare. Everything else should be privately funded. If no funds are available for a program, then it shouldn't exist in first place.

/rant

[Thor]

Wait, climategate has utterly and totally been debunked.

Now a Koch funded study by the guy who was well respected and quite vocally a climate skeptic has resulted in a full confirmation of the data and agreement by the vast majority of climate scientists.

Yeah, nothing to see here.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

First of all, my personal opinion is that there is no concrete conclusion about if this global "change" is in fact caused by humans, and secondly, should we even be concerned about it.

What I really have problem with is that politicians (Canadian and US), use "climate change", or "global warning"...whatever you want to call it... solely to appeal to their base. (some are just dumb like Al Gore who do it purely for sensationalism)
Why shouldn't they, you ask? Well I think there is a fundamental problem with govt. being the body that makes decisions about things like this. They should have no involvement in this. They can't impose on us (which includes private industries along with me and you) any tax to "combat" climate change. The Tax is the fundamental flaw

A little off topic but I think ANY tax should not be automatic unless we sign off on it. Tax should only be mandatory for things like Defense, Infrastructure, Education, and HealthCare. Everything else should be privately funded. If no funds are available for it, then it shouldn't exist in first place.

/rant

Don't tread on me!!!

Your last two sentences are so fundamentally flawed it's hilarious.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Kipperriffic

First of all, my personal opinion is that there is no concrete conclusion about if this global "change" is in fact caused by humans, and secondly, should we even be concerned about it. And there are much more important environmental topics that get overlooked by this "global warming debate"

But what I really have problem with is that politicians (Canadian and US), use "climate change", or "global warning"...whatever you want to call it... solely to appeal to their base. (some are just dumb like Al Gore who do it purely for sensationalism)
Why shouldn't they, you ask? Well I think there is a fundamental problem with govt. being the body that makes decisions about things like this. They should have no involvement in this. They can't impose on us (which includes private industries along with me and you) any tax to "combat" climate change. The Tax is the fundamental flaw

A little off topic but I think ANY tax should not be automatic unless we sign off on it. Tax should only be mandatory for things like Defense, Infrastructure, Education, and HealthCare. Everything else should be privately funded. If no funds are available for a program, then it shouldn't exist in first place.

/rant

Government is literally the only body that has the authority and capacity to make these types of decisions.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Government is literally the only body that has the authority and capacity to make these types of decisions.

Haha. Nice.

The guy sounds to me like a kid who just read Atlas Shrugged and thinks he discovered a panacea.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes but, we both know that smoking is a leading contributer to lung cancer. Carbon emission's are not known to cause global warming. That is just a theory with a lot of detractors. Weather cycles caused by the Sun's activity and such are known to effect the weather. If natural causes can explain the recent weather trends than lets go with that.

Also, quitting smoking at the very least saves money and improves breathing. Compare that to the costs of doing what advocates of carbon caused global warming say would be the neccessary fix.

You sound like the tobacco lobbyists before they were found to be full of it.

The skeptic argument...


There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

What the science says...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...al-warming.htm