Global Warming: The actual charts

[Lacius]

Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html

Deforestation is a real problem when it comes to global warming and climate change, but vegans (particularly American vegans) are not to blame. The United States also has little to nothing to do with soybean production in other countries, since we don't really import soy.

Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"...

Cutting down rainforests doesn't increase oxygen production, and it doesn't decrease carbon dioxide concentration. Rainforests are a carbon sink. It absorbs more carbon than it releases. You also have to remember that the seasons affect carbon dioxide concentrations. Forests take in carbon in the spring (when trees grow, leaves grow, etc.), and they release carbon in the fall (when leaves rot, etc.). However, some of that carbon isn't released back into the air in the autumn because it's trapped in the trees themselves.

My issue with all this global warming BS, is that global warming IS real. It's been warming up since the last ice age... I don't think there is anything we can do about it except advance tech and hope the scientists can come up with something that will terraform this planet until we can get off this rock.

The Earth naturally goes through periods of warming and cooling, often due in part to naturally changing carbon dioxide concentrations, but that's not what is happening now. Humans are drastically changing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, which causally affects the Earth's temperatures. The rate at which carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere is unprecedented in Earth's entire history, and it's currently about twice as much as it has been in the last 800,000 years.

 

[zomborg]

Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html

Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"...

Don't take my word for it, here is a tree-hugger admitting it.

https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/rain-forests-lungs-of-the-earth-8eae87573e7c

Wow that second article you posted really surprised me I did not realize rainforests do not really absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

 

[Lacius]

Typical response but it really doesn't surprise me. You glance at my list of 24 points to refute climate alarmists and you are either too lazy to take the time to read them, much less respond to them or do not possess the knowledge to adequately refute them. So instead you use the trusty old excuse that they are from discredited sources so that you don't have to respond. Very revealing.

I took the time to read "your" points and was working on responding to the first few before I realized from a Google search that they were all copy/pasted. I'm not interested in responding to a barrage of copy/pasted bullet points that I would probably be taking more time to read than you did. If you want me to talk to you, you're going to have to talk to me. That's how discourse works.

Then, also typical, you bring out the colorful charts. Yes I'm sure they are enough to placate the simple minded and distract them with pretty colors but, just as you pointed the finger at me saying you only want to address me if I use my own words and not copy/paste from other sources, your nasa link and pictures are not your own. They are copy/pasted from other sources.

I made my points, explained my points, and used the charts and links as evidence. You copy/pasted bullet points without making nor explaining any points. I am sorry you don't see the difference.

I agree. Yes C02 can be deadly but as I stated in my previous post:

"Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

In the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide has never gone higher 280 ppm. Since the industrial revolution, however, carbon dioxide levels have reached approximately 413 ppm. That's a significant increase, and it's only getting worse. Your "0.00022 percent" was debunked long ago as wildly inaccurate and misleading. It's like me saying that the 10,000 gallons of water I'm about to put into my pool this summer is only 1% of the water I've ever put into it. While technically true if I've refilled my pool 100 times in the past, it's misleading and says nothing about whether or not 10,000 gallons is a lot or if my pool can hold that much.

"It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."

None of this is relevant. Carbon dioxide doesn't have to be the most common greenhouse gas for it to be the major cause of human-made climate change. It also doesn't take a lot of something to be a greenhouse gas. We're talking about parts per million, after all.

Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Yes, and changing carbon dioxide concentrations are correlated with temperature changes. There are also other factors that affect the climate, but carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are big ones.

Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

There are other variables that affect climate. Sometimes, one thing leads to warmth, which leads to increased carbon dioxide, which leads to more warmth, etc. That's called a positive feedback loop. It doesn't change that increased carbon dioxide levels means increased heat.

After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

Temperatures did not "fall for four decades" after 1940. Temperatures, on average, went up approximately 0.1 degrees C between 1940 and 1980. Between 1980 and 2019, the change has been more than 0.7 degrees C.

Temperature increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

No, they're not. It's not even consistent with trends over the last 2,000 years, let alone the last 100 years.

Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in what was known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming.

There's no real evidence for this, and the findings I believe you are referring to have been independently verified, so it's irrelevant.

The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

It didn't actually show this. You didn't provide a source, but if it's what I believe you're talking about, it was one scientist who made bold claims about a single team without any corroborating evidence.

Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

Read about the Soon-and-Baliunas controversy. His methodology was flawed, and he's been heavily criticized by the scientific community. He also failed to disclose over a million dollars he received from the fossil fuel industry during his work.

It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates.

1-2 degrees doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a lot when we are talking about the climate of the entire Earth. The difference between the present and a major ice age is only a few degrees when we are talking about a global scale.
The temperature increase is not within natural rates. See the chart above for natural rates over the past 2,000 years and natural rates over the past 800,000 years.

The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

I hope you know you're talking about drastic changes to Earth's climate that occurred in part due to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Also, what's your point?

Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere causes more harm than good, and most importantly, it is a direct cause of global warming. Whether or not you think global warming is "positive" to some species is also irrelevant to the conversation.

Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of temperature and climate change.

1. Ice data actually shows that temperature is very much correlated to carbon dioxide levels.
2. In some cases in climate history, a smaller climate event can cause a positive feedback loop. For example, colder temperatures caused by something unrelated to greenhouse gases can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases, which can decrease the temperature even more, which can then reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases even more. Your point is irrelevant and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how climate science works. Nothing about this suggests there's "little evidence that concentrations of CO2 are the cause of climate change."

It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

Saying computer models can be maliciously manipulated is irrelevant to whether or not climate predictions are true. If you're going to say there's something wrong with the math or science, you need to show the problem.

One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

Virtually all of the evidence shows that increased carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet.

Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

Different plants in different areas are going to respond to climate change brought upon by human-caused global warming differently. Generally speaking though, areas with the most deforestation that are the biggest carbon sinks will shrink in response to heat and droughts. This could cause a positive feedback loop.

So in essence, my point is, whether you deny it or not, There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

The evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet is overwhelming, and there's virtually no evidence that counters it. Human-caused global warming and climate change is real.

A good example of this is the Michael Mann hockey stick chart

But in modern times when McShane and Wyner input all of the exact same data as Mann in an effort to duplicate his results, though they tried repeatedly they were not able to replicate his results. As you see from their chart.

The "hockey stick chart" has been replicated more than two dozen times, including by McShane and Wyner. I suggest this reading on why climate-deniers really want to disprove the "hocket stick chart," how they tried to do it, and why they inevitably failed.

And of course climate alarmists will immediately tell us this too was already debunked long ago but you see that's the thing. Your so called experts will say that their data is the ONLY accurate data then our experts will debunk it and then yours will debunk our debunk and on and on into infinity.

I'm not saying it was debunked. I'm saying it doesn't make the point you think it makes.

Make no mistake, there are very intelligent scientists on both sides of this but the difference is the left has the superior funding and the support of the media. Which makes it much easier to quickly stamp out results that are presented to the contrary and thus just label them as fake, untrue and conspiracy.

Virtually every climate scientist (>99%) agrees that human-caused global warming is real. The problem isn't funding (the fossil fuel industry throws money at anything that could discredit climate change). The problem isn't the media. The problem is the anti-global warming side doesn't have science on its side. When there's scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels isn't warming the planet, that's when it's time to believe it. Right now though, the scientific evidence is clear: Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and it's acting as a greenhouse gas that is warming the planet.

This picture sums it up quite adequately.

There's no profit motive in perpetuating a myth that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming. A lot of the corruption can be found on the fossil fuel industry side. I referenced one example earlier in this post.

Wow that second article you posted really surprised me I did not realize rainforests do not really absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

Rainforests are indeed carbon sinks.

Now, I have spent more time than I wanted responding to you, but I told myself it was okay as long as I laid down some ground rules afterwards. We have now responded to each other's posts in full, but I don't really want to do this essay back-and-forth more than I already have. So, if you want me to respond to your posts:

1. You can pick a single point of mine to contradict, and we can take them one at a time. If you attempt to tackle more than one point at a time, I will not participate.
2. I will not move on from a topic until one of us concedes the topic. We are dealing with a lot of objective facts here, and I'm not going to let you get away with moving on to another topic without conceding that you were wrong.

You're perfectly free to ignore my rules (I expect you will, which will give me a break). If you don't follow these rules though, do not expect a substantive response.

 

[Loyalty]

Cutting down rainforests doesn't increase oxygen production, and it doesn't decrease carbon dioxide concentration. Rainforests are a carbon sink. It absorbs more carbon than it releases. You also have to remember that the seasons affect carbon dioxide concentrations. Forests take in carbon in the spring (when trees grow, leaves grow, etc.), and they release carbon in the fall (when leaves rot, etc.). However, some of that carbon isn't released back into the air in the autumn because it's trapped in the trees themselves.

Again, I just point out that all science does not support that.... they just don't know... Environmentalist are tying to spin it as due to deforesting, but it is not clear if the old untouched forests are actually the ones emitting more than it absorbs. Seems it varies on how liberal a publication is or how conservative. Things like who funds your research makes a difference (and you and me both know it)...

QUOTE: A study now suggests that tropical forests today return more carbon back into the atmosphere than they remove from it as carbon dioxide (CO2). As plant matter (including leaves, tree trunks and roots) break down — or rot — their carbon will be recycled back into the environment. Much of it will enter the atmosphere as CO2. /End Quote

Another article QUOTE: Although no one doubts that forests are taking up some of the CO2 emitted by human activity, scientists are still unsure which forests are sequestering the most carbon, and how much is stored in long-lasting wood versus in roots and soil.

There can also be bias in how researchers have typically chosen plots and measured biomass, Muller-Landau says. Tropical forests can be hot, humid, buggy, dangerous and in some cases nearly impossible to reach. So rather than sample randomly, scientists often choose study sites based on ease of access. And biomass estimates vary depending on the choice of species-specific equations used to convert circumference and height measurements; for many tropical trees, reliable equations are still being worked out. /End Quote

https://www.nature.com/news/the-hunt-for-the-world-s-missing-carbon-1.17867

Most oxygen is produced in the top few feet of the ocean... More CO2 means it probable will benefit for it. Those Algae are more important than all the rainforests.

http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/

 

[Lacius]

Again, I just point out that all science does not support that.... they just don't know... Environmentalist are tying to spin it as due to deforesting, but it is not clear if the old untouched forests are actually the ones emitting more than it absorbs. Seems it varies on how liberal a publication is or how conservative. Things like who funds your research makes a difference (and you and me both know it)...

QUOTE: A study now suggests that tropical forests today return more carbon back into the atmosphere than they remove from it as carbon dioxide (CO2). As plant matter (including leaves, tree trunks and roots) break down — or rot — their carbon will be recycled back into the environment. Much of it will enter the atmosphere as CO2. /End Quote

Another article QUOTE: Although no one doubts that forests are taking up some of the CO2 emitted by human activity, scientists are still unsure which forests are sequestering the most carbon, and how much is stored in long-lasting wood versus in roots and soil.

As I said, rainforests absorb more carbon than they release back into the atmosphere, which is what makes them a carbon sink, but a lot of that carbon is seasonally released back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what your point is, given you didn't contradict anything I said.

 

[Loyalty]

As I said, rainforests absorb more carbon than they release back into the atmosphere, which is what makes them a carbon sink, but a lot of that carbon is seasonally released back into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what your point is, given you didn't contradict anything I said.

You did read where some reports say the forest release twice as much CO2 as they absorb... so what I am saying is nobody knows. The environmentalist sites try to spin it as because of deforestation X happens, but nobody knows, it may just as well be the old forest were not a carbon trap... in one of my previous articles it pointed out that X amount was captured by forest but pointed out that if it was trapping as much as they claimed it would be far far far more... another article also mentioned the "missing carbon sink" that scientist can't find (because forest are not doing what they though it was doing). I imagine they will find the debts of the ocean does more carbon trapping then they thought. But then again, what do I know.

I just know God set up a system that works, and it is more sturdy than most scientist give it credit for.... Now to read an article on where the Prince revised his "dooms day" date back again... because it didn't pan out like the alarmist thought... and made him look foolish.

 

[Nerdtendo]

Got this ad when lurking. I think the internet is trying to tell me it hates me

 

[Loyalty]

Virtually every climate scientist (>99%) agrees that human-caused global warming is real.

Hold it, I thought it was 97% and if you did the raw data ... ONLY 1.6% thought Man was the main cause of global warming... When you lump in those that thought man contributed to warming with those that thought man was the main cause, you get the 97%...

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

 

[Lacius]

You did read where some reports say the forest release twice as much CO2 as they absorb... so what I am saying is nobody knows. The environmentalist sites try to spin it as because of deforestation X happens, but nobody knows, it may just as well be the old forest were not a carbon trap... in one of my previous articles it pointed out that X amount was captured by forest but pointed out that if it was trapping as much as they claimed it would be far far far more... another article also mentioned the "missing carbon sink" that scientist can't find (because forest are not doing what they though it was doing). I imagine they will find the debts of the ocean does more carbon trapping then they thought. But then again, what do I know.

I just know God set up a system that works, and it is more sturdy than most scientist give it credit for.... Now to read an article on where the Prince revised his "dooms day" date back again... because it didn't pan out like the alarmist thought... and made him look foolish.

It's not physically possible for a tree to release more carbon dioxide than it takes in. Carbon dioxide has to come from somewhere.

I don't believe in any gods, since there's no reason to think any exist, but the subject of God is irrelevant. Humans are burning fossil fuels, not God.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Hold it, I thought it was 97% and if you did the raw data ... ONLY 1.6% thought Man was the main cause of global warming... When you lump in those that thought man contributed to warming with those that thought man was the main cause, you get the 97%...

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/16_not_97_agree.html

This is a flawed analysis. It's saying 1.6% of the study abstracts mentioned human causes, even though that wasn't the scope of the vast majority of studies analyzed. So, it's irrelevant to how many climatologists believe human-caused global warming is real.

 

[Loyalty]

This is a flawed analysis. It's saying 1.6% of the study abstracts mentioned human causes, even though that wasn't the scope of the vast majority of studies analyzed. So, it's irrelevant to how many climatologists believe human-caused global warming is real.

Hold it, it wasn't flawed when you claim greater than 99 percent (but your link only said 97%), but suddenly when someone used the data as given and breaks it down it is flawed.

I see ... You chose to use the headline that said one thing (man caused this)... but the data said that that headline was flawed.... Whatever, I see how you play.

It's not physically possible for a tree to release more carbon dioxide than it takes in. Carbon dioxide has to come from somewhere.

Microorganisms metabolizing all that dead wood.

I found another interesting article....

After a massive tree die-off, conventional wisdom has it that a forest would go from carbon sink to carbon source: Since the soil microbes are still around, they are expected to release large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it is thought to accelerate climate change.

"Surprisingly, we couldn't find a big pulse," said Moore, who is also a member of the UA Institute of the Environment.

Trahan added: "In the first few years after beetles have come in and killed trees, the carbon release from the surrounding soil actually goes down."

https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

BTW... you may notice I edit my posts a lot... I am a horrible speller and I find flaws constantly... also I am still learning the ropes here. I am not a fan of fast paced discussions, so understand if I reply days later. Old fart that has roamed in a young man's playground.

 

[Lacius]

Hold it, it wasn't flawed when you claim greater than 99 percent (but your link only said 97%), but suddenly when someone used the data as given and breaks it down it is flawed.

I see ... You chose to use the headline that said one thing (man caused this)... but the data said that that headline was flawed.... Whatever, I see how you play.





Microorganisms metabolizing all that dead wood.

I found another interesting article....



https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/dead-forests-release-less-carbon-into-atmosphere-than-expected

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

BTW... you may notice I edit my posts a lot... I am a horrible speller and I find flaws constantly... also I am still learning the ropes here. I am not a fan of fast paced discussions, so understand if I reply days later. Old fart that has roamed in a young man's playground.

You seem to have misunderstood or misread. My link doesn't say anything about 1.6%: Yours does. That's the one that's flawed.

Microorganisms cannot release more carbon dioxide from dead wood than was absorbed from the atmosphere to make the wood in the first place. Carbon doesn't come out of nowhere.

No worries about your edits. I do the same thing.

 

[Glyptofane]

I've been trying to tell him that Snopes is irrelevant, but he won't listen.

You are the one who sources them, so not irrelevant.

 

[H1B1Esquire]

Heck if you want to get down

Fucc yea, bby.
Seriously, we may be at the point we can "modify" certain moss to produce more O2 by growing on certain trees that _______™.

Honestly, if a firm paid me enough, I'd solve all of these "crises" "we" face.....and very efficiently, to boot.

 

[Lacius]

You are the one who sources them, so not irrelevant.

1. I've explained why the quality of Snopes is irrelevant to whether or not his point about "30,000 signatures" is correct (it's not).
2. The Snopes article is accurate, and Snopes broadly is a reputable source.

 

[Ratatattat]

Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html

Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"...

Don't take my word for it, here is a tree-hugger admitting it.

https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/rain-forests-lungs-of-the-earth-8eae87573e7c

I won't take your word for it nor the fairy tale from the supposed tree huger either. You are totally avoiding the fact of just where is that carbon. And your oxygen statement is senseless also.

 

[notimp]

@Soy Burgers: Cattle consumes vastly more soy (or equivalent) to produce a unit of beef, than a unit of soy. 'Biofuels' (Currently not good for anything at all) - even more so.

But in the end those pieces of rainforest get torched to get space for plantations, that produce whatever makes most money at that point. So its all about raising the worth of 'standing trees', and if thats not possible (too costly), doing it through political channels (basically demanding a form of 'corruption').

This would be a case where corruption could be declared morally good, btw.

That said - people looking at beef as a food to aspire too, is something that could be modified (lets say through PR). And would produce minimal 'harm'.

In Europe we currently have a configuration, where we are going into open trade relations with south america, which will swamp us with beef. So the more people not going for that, the more it would be beneficial for our economy in that trade configuration. So now it could be even seen as patriotic.

Free choice is still a minimum requirement though.

And if you try to guilttrip people into the next recession by consuming less - for heaven - and you give them all kinds of good tips on how to not aspire to any economic development as middle class. You still are below bottom feeder category in my book.

That said - getting people to eat less meat - kind of something that has limited potential to 'hurt' lives or outlooks, so - not the stupidest idea. If you start preaching it though, I still would like to hit you in your mouth (figuratively speaking).

 

[Loyalty]

1. I've explained why the quality of Snopes is irrelevant to whether or not his point about "30,000 signatures" is correct (it's not).
2. The Snopes article is accurate, and Snopes broadly is a reputable source.

It is some sort of Fallacy to condemn the source and not the substance of an article. So I agree. I don't care for the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You may not like Fox News, but not everything they write is wrong. Most news from sources like CNN, CNBC, Fox and The New York Times is presented to appeal to their demographic. Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it. Snopes is the same and yes it is slanted when they can get away with it. But that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You just better watch them on political matters cause they will stretch the truth or ignore it when they think they can get away with it.

For example: During the democratic convention (for Hillary) it was rightfully pointed out that beyond the opening ceremonies no US flags were displayed. Snopes tried its best to cover for them, even displaying pictures taken from different time frames.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/...k-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/

Yeah, Snopes is not what I consider a good source on political matters without doing your own investigation, they will slant as hard left as they can get away with.

____________________________
____________________________

Back on subject... I am at least glad everyone (for the most part) did accept one point I brought up. That Soy was profitable enough that Brazil is clearing the land to make for more of its production. I ruffled a few feathers with my "Soy burger" joke but whatever the use of the Soy (Soy Burgers, Cow feed, or Fish feed which a lot of areas use), it is being used to deforest the Amazon. I just wanted to point out that the science for its effect probable ain't what the doomsday people are predicting.

I noticed that when presented with "can't release more carbon than put in" was thrown at me, and I pointed out that micros and bugs eat the rotten wood that yes more carbon can be released than absorbed. That point was ignored and the real carbon sink question still remains. As one scientist suggested, cut down the forest and bury the wood instead of letting it rot or be burned... I think Brazil would have cause to kill a few scientists that would try to destroy their economy like that.

 

[Lacius]

It is some sort of Fallacy to condemn the source and not the substance of an article. So I agree. I don't care for the Washington Post, but that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You may not like Fox News, but not everything they write is wrong. Most news from sources like CNN, CNBC, Fox and The New York Times is presented to appeal to their demographic. Which means they will write it to best spin it to make their audience happy to read it. Snopes is the same and yes it is slanted when they can get away with it. But that doesn't mean everything they write is wrong. You just better watch them on political matters cause they will stretch the truth or ignore it when they think they can get away with it.

For example: During the democratic convention (for Hillary) it was rightfully pointed out that beyond the opening ceremonies no US flags were displayed. Snopes tried its best to cover for them, even displaying pictures taken from different time frames.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/...k-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/

Yeah, Snopes is not what I consider a good source on political matters without doing your own investigation, they will slant as hard left as they can get away with.

____________________________
____________________________

Back on subject... I am at least glad everyone (for the most part) did accept one point I brought up. That Soy was profitable enough that Brazil is clearing the land to make for more of its production. I ruffled a few feathers with my "Soy burger" joke but whatever the use of the Soy (Soy Burgers, Cow feed, or Fish feed which a lot of areas use), it is being used to deforest the Amazon. I just wanted to point out that the science for its effect probable ain't what the doomsday people are predicting.

I noticed that when presented with "can't release more carbon than put in" was thrown at me, and I pointed out that micros and bugs eat the rotten wood that yes more carbon can be released than absorbed. That point was ignored and the real carbon sink question still remains. As one scientist suggested, cut down the forest and bury the wood instead of letting it rot or be burned... I think Brazil would have cause to kill a few scientists that would try to destroy their economy like that.

You ignored my point that microbes and insects cannot release more carbon from a tree than was absorbed to make the tree in the first place. That is physically impossible. You're objectively wrong on this one.

 

[zomborg]

I took the time to read "your" points and was working on responding to the first few before I realized from a Google search that they were all copy/pasted. I'm not interested in responding to a barrage of copy/pasted bullet points that I would probably be taking more time to read than you did. If you want me to talk to you, you're going to have to talk to me. That's not how discourse works. Now, I have spent more time than I wanted responding to you, but I told myself it was okay as long as I laid down some ground rules afterwards. We have now responded to each other's posts in full, but I don't really want to do this essay back-and-forth more than I already have. So, if you want me to respond to your posts:

1. You can pick a single point of mine to contradict, and we can take them one at a time. If you attempt to tackle more than one point at a time, I will not participate.
2. I will not move on from a topic until one of us concedes the topic. We are dealing with a lot of objective facts here, and I'm not going to let you get away with moving on to another topic without conceding that you were wrong.

You're perfectly free to ignore my rules (I expect you will, which will give me a break). If you don't follow these rules though, do not expect a substantive response.

So I began this debate with my original post. Therefore I should dictate what rules we should observe. Reminds me of when I was a young boy. I had friends whom if I didn't play the game the way they wanted it to be, they would take their ball and go home. But, for now, I will observe your rules. I will pick just one of your points for address.

There's no real evidence for this, and the findings I believe you are referring to have been independently verified, so it's irrelevant. It didn't actually show this. You didn't provide a source, but if it's what I believe you're talking about, it was one scientist who made bold claims about a single team without any corroborating evidence

So in a nutshell, The climate - gate scandal came about when an unknown hacker, hacked into a server containing emails between a group of scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK. A chief member of the team was prominent scientist Michael Mann of hockey stick fame.

Many things were revealed when the emails on the server were released to the public via internet. There were really too many to list here but I will just share with you a sampling of some highlights.

Several emails shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.

The leaked documents are the hard evidence, that there has been no unprecedented warming and that global mean temperatures since the industrial revolution have not been in the least bit unusual. These documents also confirm that there has even been a cooling over the last decade, as many have long suspected

CO2 continues to rise yet temperature does not. The causal link between CO2 and temperature have been shown to be a fraud. CO2 cannot be driving temperature, the hard evidence of this fact is contained within these leaked documents.

Here is one of the most frequently circulated emails :

"From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil"


Now those first few points are interesting in themselves but we've only scratched the surface. In the following points I will provide quick snapshots of the actual emails with the juiciest parts highlighted. I have obtained the original emails (60mb).Excuse the imperfect highlighting as I am currently in an environment with low stability.

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers.

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request

Phil Jones says he has used Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”

Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with skeptics

Ok, so that was just a small sampling of the emails which contain the proof that tree huggers and climate alarmists need to hear BUT

As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average person.

The real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the code of climate models which prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.

Man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to make them produce the results they wanted.

This next quote is from another email but in 60mb of emails I'm having trouble finding it again. If anyone wants to read the the entire 60mb of emails just pm me. I attached a few at the bottom of this post. Anyhow, here's the quote :

"Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures"

This shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the politicized organization that has attempted to slam the lid shut on global warming skepticism by claiming it is the supreme authority, despite the fact that scientists used by the IPCC were caught manipulating data and conspiring to hide evidence of global cooling during the climategate scandal.

UK scientist Piers Corbyn:
The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn said.

UAE climate science professor Mike Hulme:
[Upcoming UN climate conference in Copenhagen] “is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. […] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

And finally, to get even more detail if you are not already overwhelmed, please click here for one of my sources.

 

[chrisrlink]

funny how it got hotter since Trump reverse EPA rules at least here it it it's been 90's all month about here in virginia (a temperate state ecological wise) thats not normal 70-80's yes but tomorrow and sunday are 99 F at this point I rather have WW3 happen then us boiling to death...slowly