exminister
Well-known member
So you don't think there is any pollution in water or air? You keep talking about CO. I want you to explain what is causing pollution if you believe in such a thing.
“Climate change” is a LIE… Ask… HELLLLO!!!... SCIENTISTS (of all people)!
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
So you don't think there is any pollution in water or air? You keep talking about CO. I want you to explain what is causing pollution if you believe in such a thing.
exminister
Well-known member
If CO is not to be focused on what should be to reduce pollution?
Isn't that a better focus?
Isn't that a better focus?
brewmama
New member
Oh my gosh. You're hopeless. I will explain this one more time and then give up. This thread is about climate change/global warming. Not pollution. The claim is that climate change/global warming is from CO2. Not pollution. Not smog. CO is pollution But it is not CO2. CO2 is necessary for life on this planet.
The pollution that you insist on talking about (off topic) has nothing to do with CO2 or global warming. Yet you KEEP bringing it up. Why?
exminister
Well-known member
Because you have set yourself up as a teacher. This argument for global warming/climate change you have clearly stated is misguided. For sake of argument I will accept that.
When some hear you criticize climate change they think you are against clean air and clean water. The thread shows that. So you could explain what does cause pollution if not CO2. In this way you could direct the argument down the right path. However, if you really don't know what is causing pollution, but it is not CO2, then I certainly would accept that answer instead.
brewmama
New member
If some people are clueless about the difference in global warming supposedly via CO2 and pollution I can certainly explain that CO2 is not a pollutant. But they have to listen. The powers that be are not interested in fixing pollution, they just want to use scare tactics to force people to give up cheap energy (which will devastate the poor of the world). This is what I aim to clarify.
I don't think this thread shows anything of the sort though, except for you.
exminister
Well-known member
Do they recognize that they would devastate the poor? I assume they are corporate and want to replace coal and fossil fuels because of greed? And they have to do it this way because the expensive of solar, wind, geothermal keeps them from making profits and want to use the government to lend a hand?
Is there anything wrong with alternative power in addition to fossil fuels? Wind and solar certainly appear they will outlast fossil fuels.
I have been reading various articles on this subject matter and they state as you say CO is produced by burning fossil fuels, but CO2 is also produced. Anything can become a poison given sufficient quantities and time, even oxygen itself.
If we continue to increase CO2 and tear down forests why couldn't poison/pollute the earth?
Must not be any poor people that live in the lowlying areas of Pakistan or any of the small island nations that will be hard hit by rising sea levels
Ah, they're all the wrong color and religion anyway.
brewmama
New member
Except that sea level rise has not accelerated on about 100 years, so CO2 obviously has nothing to do with it.
"The data include long time period duration (in excess of 30 years) tide gauge station records covering the Hawaiian Islands, Alaska and the Pacific, Gulf Coast and Atlantic coastline regions of the U.S. as well as many other global wide coastal locations. This latest NOAA data shows unchanging linear trends in the rate of sea level rise worldwide with many of these records including 100 year and longer measurement duration periods."
"There is simply nothing in these NOAA long duration mean sea level trend data records that supports claims that man made CO2 emissions are accelerating sea level rise at U.S. locations. Without belaboring the point the same holds true for locations worldwide as demonstrated by the latest NOAA global wide mean sea level trend data."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/...nfirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
But why let facts stand in the way of your scary scary scenarios?
brewmama
New member
Because plants need CO2 to grow, and they grow better with increased CO2.
No, I don't mean corporations. Sheesh, who ARE you? I mean the elitist heads of states meeting in sumptuous conditions as we speak trying to destroy cheap energy and rob any rich nation of billions of dollars.
There is so much wrong with wind and solar as compared to fossil fuels that it would require a new thread. And these power grabbers want to destroy fossil fuels, not just supplement them.
badp
New member
Climate is not weather. Except when the weather is really hot or there's a big hurricane, then it's global warming. Or if it's really cold, and there's a blizzard, that's because of climate change. The debate's over. Global warming change is climate real. Get on board or we'll pummel you with anecdotal evidence from 1978.
gcthomas
New member
I was criticising the very dishonest conclusion from the data mined photos that ice cover was increasing not decreasing.
Don't you value honesty? Or is that not a republican thing?
Last edited:
exminister
Well-known member
brewmama said:
Someone trying to comprehend what you are saying through the noise of your irritation.For someone so clearly concerned about this ruse you are not defending it well. I am sorry I just don't swallow your assertion whole without question but that is not how you win consensus.
What motivates these heads of state if not money or lobbyists?
What would they have to gain? Is it all for grins?
gcthomas
New member
The peer reviewed science disagrees with you and your anti-AGW advocacy website reference. The rate of sea level rise is indeed increasing in line with the expectations.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html
gcthomas
New member
If we followed the NRA argument line, if CO2 is allowing warming, what we need is a lot more CO2 to fight back with some extra warming.
:think:
brewmama
New member
A perfect example of how alarmists get things done...go back and change past ground temps to make warming look more alarming, and now change past sea level rise to also make it look more alarming. Their tactics are recognized and well known.
Sitamun
New member
So I am assuming you have some sort of actual proof to back up your claims yes?
brewmama
New member
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html#ixzz27YZRxqIW
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/28/nasa-evasion-of-quality-control-procedures/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/...sting-unsuitable-data-now-includes-july-data/
Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data. To revisit something said in regards to a previous news story about NCDC’s tendency to adjust data as time goes on, so much so that they can’t even tell us with certainty anymore which month in the past century was the warmest on record, this is still applicable:
“Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment,” Watts told FoxNews.com.
“In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”
Hold that thought, because NCDC is at it again.
THE IMPACT OF NOAA’S SHIP-BUOY BIAS ADJUSTMENTS DURING THE SLOWDOWN HAVE MADE THEIR NEW SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATASET AN OUTLIER
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/...mpt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/
My latest query of about a week ago has to do with still using lower quality data at least as far back as 2001. For Australia between 2003-2013, 98% of their data is sourced to Met Office, but the higher quality MCDW has much of that data available. I don’t understand why they aren’t using the higher priority MCDW data. There are 2000-3000 pieces annually of Met Office data still being used since 2001, less than 1/3rd of it is related to Australia. Other countries in the database might also still be listed with inferior data simply because their data hasn’t been properly upgraded. A couple emails were exchanged, but no reason given, and no changes made. At this point I think it is questionable if GHCN will thoroughly investigate and upgrade to higher quality sources where appropriate. It will be a pleasant surprise if they do.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/03/ncdcs-ghcn-fumbles-data-handling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/16/kiwi-weather-station-data-shenanigins-going-to-court/
We’ve seen examples time and again of the cooling of the past via homogenization that goes on with GISS, HadCRUT, and other temperature data sets. By cooling the data from the past, the trend/slope of the temperature for the last 100 years increases.
This time, the realization comes from an unlikely source, Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground via contributor Christopher C. Burt. An excerpt of the story is below:
Inconsistencies in NCDC Historical Temperature Analysis
Jeff Masters and I recently received an interesting email from Ken Towe who has been researching the NCDC historical temperature database and came across what appeared to be some startling inconsistencies. Namely that the average state temperature records used in the current trends analysis by the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) do not reflect the actual published records of such as they appeared in the Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past...
there are all sorts of “justifications” for these things published by NCDC and others, but the bottom line is that they are not representative of true reality, but of a processed reality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...n-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/
gcthomas
New member
It really sounds like you disagree with the conclusions rather than the methods. But believing something is false because you would prefer it to be false is not a very good reason.
The paper justifies each step with evidence and tests of the data. Which step do you disagree with and why?
lighthouse99
New member
That's because there is no such thing as extreme climate change causd by humans. The climate is always changing. I think there was a time in the 1850s or thereabouts when it was unusually warm but tht was before all the industrialization, which began about 40 years later