Any proof CO2 is not the cause of GW?

[yellow jacket]

I've been trying to convert people away from the AGW bs, and have stated lots of data showing changes occuring on other planets in the solar system. However I keep being told I need to prove that CO2 is not the cause or has not risen in our atmosphere.

any help?

[senseifil]

I've been trying to convert people away from the AGW bs, and have stated lots of data showing changes occuring on other planets in the solar system. However I keep being told I need to prove that CO2 is not the cause or has not risen in our atmosphere.

any help?

unless ya get and analyze the raw data yourself, your only proof is other peoples articles. http://www.advisingvideo.com/index.php/climategate

[martg]

It's hard to prove a negative, but you could mention facts like carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of our atmosphere and has virtually no impact on global climate.

the strongest evidence I know of is the fact you already mentioned about other planets in our solar system following the same temperature cycles as the earth.

maybe others on this forum have more info?
I'd appreciate any more info on this myself ;)

[pureheart]

Didn't the ice cores reveal that the planet has naturally undergone periods of cooling and warming over the centuries?

[senseifil]

and the fact that 1 volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than the the whole history of human industry. volcanoes erupt somewhere every day

[dreamweaver]

The problem is that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect - but it's a good thing which makes our planet a lot warmer than it would otherwise be, especially at night.

What the AGW lot do is make CO2 out to be more important than it really is for their own agenda - "climate science" was a very minor science until politicians latched on to the idea that they could tax and control populations if they could "prove" that humans were harming the planet.

The main flaw in AGW is that CO2 lags 800 years behind warming. It's the warming that mainly causes the CO2 levels. It's not a fully one-way process, there is a little warming from the extra CO2 - but it's not significant, so they have had to fiddle the figures to make it look like it is.

Let's put it this way. Piers Corbyn, of Weather Action, predicts weather by observing sunspot activity and has a much better record than the Met Office. Before he started his company, he used to place bets on the weather and never lost a single one.

[gripit]

Hello yellow jacket :) Tell these dimwits that it is they, who must provide proof positive that man made Co2 causes GW, not the other way around. Also, see my signature :)


The main flaw in AGW is that CO2 lags 800 years behind warming.

This is a scientific fact, like, an actual, real scientific fact! Those bloody Vikings and their SUV's :p


Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data

These maps and graphs make it clear just how brazen the fraud of the Hockey Stick is.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/649/mwpglobalstudiesmapippt.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/mwpglobalstudiesmapippt.gif/) http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/mwpglobalstudiesmapippt.gif/1/w1024.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img5/mwpglobalstudiesmapippt.gif/1/)

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8079/mwpboreholeshuang1997.gif (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/mwpboreholeshuang1997.gif/) http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/mwpboreholeshuang1997.gif/1/w550.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img5/mwpboreholeshuang1997.gif/1/)

What follows is a sordid tale of a graph that overthrew decades of work, conveniently fitted the climate models, and was lauded triumphantly in glossy publication after publication. But then it was crushed when an unpaid analyst stripped it bare. It had been published in the highest most prestigious journal, Nature, but no one had checked it before or after it was spread far and wide. Not Nature, not the IPCC, not any other climate researcher.

In 1995 everyone agreed the world was warmer in medieval times, but CO2 was low then and that didn’t fit with climate models. In 1998, suddenly Michael Mann ignored the other studies and produced a graph that scared the world — tree rings show the “1990’s was the hottest decade for a thousand years”. Now temperatures exactly “fit” the rise in carbon! The IPCC used the graph all over their 2001 report. Government departments copied it. The media told everyone.

But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed. (Jo Nova)

http://junkscience.com/

[yellow jacket]

wow that's really great stuff. Especially that co2 lags 800 years. and I love that quote you have from michael crighton. This stuff is going to be very helpful in the future. I'm honestly tickled shitless about using that quote the next time someone claims the scientific consensus is settled. consensus consensus that's all you hear from people. Along with all "respected" scientific authorities agree. That's why I try to use things like interplanetary climate change and data from satellites because it is is information from a machine and not a person who has an agenda behind them

[gripit]

wow that's really great stuff. Especially that co2 lags 800 years. and I love that quote you have from michael crighton. This stuff is going to be very helpful in the future. I'm honestly tickled shitless about using that quote the next time someone claims the scientific consensus is settled. consensus consensus that's all you hear from people. Along with all "respected" scientific authorities agree. That's why I try to use things like interplanetary climate change and data from satellites because it is is information from a machine and not a person who has an agenda behind them

Go get 'em! :)

Here is the whole quote and link to his speech (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html).

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Edit: And another thing you should point out, that almost nobody, for whatever reason, bothers to mention. WARM PLANET = GOOD. COLD PLANET = BAD...for pretty much every living species! During the Medieval Warming Period, humans thrived. The Vikings were farming Greenland, hence the name! During the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum), we suffered. Cold planet means shorter growing seasons, famine, disease and death. If the planet were actually warming, this would be terrific news. Read this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,481707,00.html) :)

[dreamweaver]

yellow jacket, Prof Richard Lindzen, a leading AGW sceptic, has produced the killer scientific paper which destroys the 'consensus' on CO2. His 20-year study shows the role of CO2 has been overestimated 600% by AGW believers.

Lord Monckton thinks this is the paper that history will look back on as being the end of the global warming scam. He talks about it from 2' 00" in this clip:

Glenn Beck-Lord Monckton Debate Global Warming - YouTube

More about it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/ (warning: very technical)

There's a more approachable article here: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

P.S. You asked about whether CO2 has been increasing or not in our atmosphere. Well, it has been increasing in the past 10 years - but global temperatures have been going down in the same period. :D

[ginger_wizard]

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412048

Have a read of that link and then send it to lots of folks and mention it when your in discussion with a "believer"

Also look up doggerland - some fascinating stuff & a great prog by Tony Robinson (I think it was a Time Team episode). PS dont mistake for doggingland, I dread to think what that'd bring up :p

Hey, just had a thought, if we are to be labelled by the MSM as deniers due to the political and PC undertones associated with the word, then surely the term "believer" holds a hell of a lot of light hearted ridicule and would surely rile a few people?? :D