Ahovking

Why i don't believe in Climate Change

19 posts in this topic

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988, One of the most important role of the IPCC was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was “unique” and to see if today’s supposed manmade warming was a threat. 

 

An examination of the 3 IPCC reports published reveals a remarkable scientific reversal.

 

 

In the First Assessment Report of 1990, page 202 depicts the following chart:

 

ipcc-1990-lamb.jpg

 

2nd Assessment Report, 1995

 

ipcc-1995-klimakurve.jpg

 

And instead of showing the last 1000 years, as the section title states, the chart starts only in the 15th century, i.e. exactly at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. And there’s another oddity that stands out: The drawn mean curve does not match the depicted temperature curve. 

 

3rd Assessment Report, 2001 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)

 

mann_hockeystick.jpg

 

4th Assessment Report, 2007 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)

 

ipcc-2007.jpg

 

New temperature reconstructions depict once again more or less a pronounced Medieval Warm Period. 

 

5th Assessment Report, 2013 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)

 

ipcc-2013.jpg

 

In a single stroke the Medieval Warm Period gets deleted altogether. The chart shows a relatively stable climate all the way up to 1900 with an overall slight cooling tendency. This then gets followed by a dramatic temperature increase.

 

The problem is the methodology which is employed by lead author Michael Mann. The methodology produced a hockey stick (a dramatic increase in temperature) no matter what data were input

 

Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve of 1999 is not the only climate curve that has disappeared from the 5th Assessment Report. Also Keith Briffa’s curve from 2000 and 2001 have disappeared. The following may be the reason they have disappeared. 

 

Most reconstructions do not extend all the way to the present even though they provide enough data to do so in most cases. The reason for this is because the curve designers do not want to deal with the gaping differences between the values derived from the proxy reconstructions and the values recorded by modern instruments. So they simply truncate the proxy reconstructed values where a divergence between the two datasets begins. The discarded proxy reconstruction data are then simply replaced by the instrumental data obtained from the weather stations.

 

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isnt the only ones manipulate data.

 

NOAA quietly revises website after it was getting caught in global warming lie, finally admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012: http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_noaa.html#

 

and with NASA 

"Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

 

screenhunter_627-jun-22-21-18.gif?w=640&

 

Right after the year 2000, NASA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The image below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

 

CYSyEEz.png

 

Just about every major source of Climate Change data outlet has been caught manipulating the data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between climate change and global warming. Anyone who denies climate change has their head stuck up their... yeah. Humans have adapted their environment for thousands of years - farming, deforestation, homes and buildings, etc. The earth has gone through phases of hotter and colder periods. There are multitudes of scientific reports, some of which you included in your original post, to dictate that climate change is real.

 

Global warming, especially in reference to that caused by humans, is often the point of debate though. Personally I believe that we're causing it - I'm not looking to get into an argument here - but even if we aren't (and that's a big "if"), we cannot continue to do what we currently are with the resources that the planet has given us. That last statement is also not a point of contention, similar to climate change. We'll run out of fossil fuels one day, we'll continue getting rid of the Amazon, and we'll keep recklessly abusing the world we're living on all for the sake of making our lives a little bit easier.

 

Sorry if you think the nomenclature criticism is a bit over the top, but it's one of the things that irks me. Climate change is undeniably real, and (imo) so is global warming, but only the latter can really be debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the OP was very well written, but my biggest issue is that the terms global warming and climate change are used interchangeably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between climate change and global warming. Anyone who denies climate change has their head stuck up their... yeah. Humans have adapted their environment for thousands of years - farming, deforestation, homes and buildings, etc. The earth has gone through phases of hotter and colder periods. There are multitudes of scientific reports, some of which you included in your original post, to dictate that climate change is real.

 

Global warming, especially in reference to that caused by humans, is often the point of debate though. Personally I believe that we're causing it - I'm not looking to get into an argument here - but even if we aren't (and that's a big "if"), we cannot continue to do what we currently are with the resources that the planet has given us. That last statement is also not a point of contention, similar to climate change. We'll run out of fossil fuels one day, we'll continue getting rid of the Amazon, and we'll keep recklessly abusing the world we're living on all for the sake of making our lives a little bit easier.

 

Sorry if you think the nomenclature criticism is a bit over the top, but it's one of the things that irks me. Climate change is undeniably real, and (imo) so is global warming, but only the latter can really be debated.

In my opinion, the OP was very well written, but my biggest issue is that the terms global warming and climate change are used interchangeably.

I agree, i needed to change climate change with global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is undeniably real, and (imo) so is global warming, but only the latter can really be debated.

The latter really cannot be debated. There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea of global warming (or at least man-made climate change), and the misrepresented (and misinterpreted) data in the OP do nothing to change that.

 

I'd also like to point out that, while cynicism is fun, it has its limits. When you look at a peer-reviewed and published report on something, the idea that the authors edited the data or how it is represented is far from the truth. Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't mean the authors are lying. Oftentimes, it simply means you are wrong.

 

This is doubly true because of the organization you are dealing with. To put it simply, the IPCC is one of the most respected authorities on climate change out there. Any differences in how data is presented from one chart to another is simply due to different sources for the data, not due to any arbitrary editing. They receive data from thousands of scientists from all over the world, and its silly to think that every chart produced will cover the same time spans. Changes in the graphs also represent changes in our understanding of climate change. 1995 was 20 years ago, and our knowledge on the subject has progressed since then. You'd have to be daft to dismiss evolving views on a rapidly advancing subject as "a remarkable reversal." It is simply the IPCC reacting to new knowledge.

 

Disregarding the nomenclature, you are still wrong. This isn't an opinion question, it is something that can be, and has been, answered definitively. Over 120 governments and thousands of international climate change scientists have contributed to the IPCCs reports so, just because you say it isn't so does not mean it isn't. You've just given graphs out of context with your own fanciful commentary, and presented it as a solid base on which to base your beliefs. It isn't. The solid base for beliefs regarding climate change is science. What you have here isn't science, it is meaningless conjecture intermingled with ignorance.

Edited by Palaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latter really cannot be debated. There is overwhelming evidence to support the idea of global warming (or at least man-made climate change), and the misrepresented (and misinterpreted) data in the OP do nothing to change that.

 

I'd also like to point out that, while cynicism is fun, it has its limits. When you look at a peer-reviewed and published report on something, the idea that the authors edited the data or how it is represented is far from the truth. Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't mean the authors are lying. Oftentimes, it simply means you are wrong.

 

This is doubly true because of the organization you are dealing with. To put it simply, the IPCC is one of the most respected authorities on climate change out there. Any differences in how data is presented from one chart to another is simply due to different sources for the data, not due to any arbitrary editing. They receive data from thousands of scientists from all over the world, and its silly to think that every chart produced will cover the same time spans. Changes in the graphs also represent changes in our understanding of climate change. 1995 was 20 years ago, and our knowledge on the subject has progressed since then. You'd have to be daft to dismiss evolving views on a rapidly advancing subject as "a remarkable reversal." It is simply the IPCC reacting to new knowledge.

 

Disregarding the nomenclature, you are still wrong. This isn't an opinion question, it is something that can be, and has been, answered definitively. Over 120 governments and thousands of international climate change scientists have contributed to the IPCCs reports so, just because you say it isn't so does not mean it isn't. You've just given graphs out of context with your own fanciful commentary, and presented it as a solid base on which to base your beliefs. It isn't. The solid base for beliefs regarding climate change is science. What you have here isn't science, it is meaningless conjecture intermingled with ignorance.

So your ignoring the manipulating the data and calling it "overwhelming evidence".. Why are you ignoring prove respected authorities on climate change have been caught manipulating the data to match climate change expectations

The IPCC has been proven time and time again, to have manipulating the data, men like William Kininmonth (former Deputy Head of the Bureau of Meteorology and head of that body’s Climate Centre)  and physicist Dr Tom Quirk have proven the IPCC is not trustworthy, (The IPCC’s flawed data) your ignorance and blind beliefs in climate change is sad, there isnt science, the data created by science is being manipulated

The telegraph: Climate Change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well.... if the Telegraph says it...

How about read what Telegraph was reporting

UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn't use science, the metheid of gathering the data used by the IPCC has already been prove to be deeply flawed and producing hugely unreliable results by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, There are leaked documents showing the IPCC asking their scientist to "lost" critical data and delete or manipulate data to match the overall narrative, with a disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their original data and to outsiders under freedom of information laws. 

Another bunch of leaked documents shows hows they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

n each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Your ignorance and blind beliefs in climate change is pathetic, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with a zealot, I'm afraid.

How in the world am i a Zealot? Im showing that IPCC is lying to you, a reason to be at lest doubtful that IPCC is trustworthy, and you reman close minded and stubborn in your blind belief in something that half of all meteorologists and atmospheric and climate experts say isn't real at all.

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're citing opinion articles. We're done here.

The article i was using citied actual real reports and documents anyone even yourself could look up and find, the article was used because it put the pieces together and all the information into one place, 

Look at the data, the papers and reports,look at how the IPCC and others reactions and how they conduct their operation, look at the emails, in black and white asking to hide and destroy data... a legitimate Intergovernmental Panel should not be acting this way. 

Edited by Ahovking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I suppose that it's scientifically impossible for CO2 to trap heat in the atmosphere?

 

Scientifically it is possible, but yet we know so little about the atmosphere..
 
For example a new peer-reviewed paper using observations rather than computer models has found the Earth’s climate was l ess sensitive to increasing levels of carbon ­dioxide in the atmosphere than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which could dramatically change current computer models, resulting a much more stable climate rather than a dangerous heating Climate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in a bit of a rush so didn't read all except the first couple posts and the reason why I believe in Climate Change/Global Warming (not sure there is a difference except that the scientists who first noticed said that it was getting hotter in the area they were studying) is that we have the Antarctic and the Arctic ice caps melting and sea levels rising due to the extra ice/water in them.   Human caused I strongly believe so because we are cutting down the forests which remove Carbon Dioxide and releases Oxygen, we are killing off the balance of the ecosystems on almost every corner of the globe by killing the plants and animal species in them, we are polluting the oceans with not only trash, but also the gallons of oil that is released in them every time we have a oil spill.

 

Most importantly we should stop arguing over the things we would never agree on and focus on the things we do, my favorite example to use is since we all agree that we don't want to put our mouths to a car exhaust and breathe then its a good idea to find ways to cut down on emissions.   As for me I have all my life by never getting a drivers license and getting where I need to by either finding rides for long trips or riding a bike for the every day ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...by never getting a drivers license and getting where I need to by either finding rides for long trips or riding a bike for the every day ones.

There's no reason not to have a license except inability, laziness and being too young. Seriously, drive a Tesla if you're worried about emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it has been stated already, but I believe (global warming/climate change) are a good mix of both human activity and burning of fossil fuels and other destructive means to our planet and our planets own natural course of climate change. I mean you can't blame humans for causing the ice age by screwing up the planets natural processes. I don't place all the blame on human ignorance for rising CO2 emissions and deforestation, etc. there are plenty of natural phenomena that occurs on this planet without human intervention in natural ecosystems. The difference is that if it occurs without humans it is a natural die off of a species and its ecosystem, whereas if humans are responsible we forced a kill off of an entire species which could ultimately affect our own species sooner, by causing more or less of something to occur, or more or less food to eat.

However, no matter how insignificant an impact on the planets ecosystems and CO2 emissions and O-zone deterioration you can scientifically prove to me is the fault of humanity and how we are not responsible for the planets major natural climate changes and how global warming is not caused directly by our own ignorance I will still dismiss your argument for this reason.

1) no matter what little damage we cause to our own planet, we are still partly responsible. The day the world stops using anything that can damage the planet by use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions will be the day we can say humanity is not at fault. However, until that time what ever little bit that is claimed by those who think humans have no fault in this problem are wrong. They say every little bit helps, this is also true in reverse. Every little bit can cause make it worse in this case. In terms of the environment our little bit of emissions are not helping to slow down or stop the planets global warming and climate changes.

2) throughout this planets history we have had mass extinctions due to climate changes and catastrophic weather caused by such changes. If you believe an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs then you probably have heard that the planet was encompassed by a cloud of ash and weather patterns were thrown into chaos. Plant life died, causing other animals (besides the dinosaurs) to die off causing a chain reaction of extinctions along the food chains. No plants means no small animals for larger ones to eat, no large animals meant no food for the extremely large to eat. Also no plants meant reduced oxygen which the bigger you are, the more oxygen you require. Ultimately only the smallest burrowing mammals which required the least food and oxygen survived.

During this time the cloud caused global temperatures to drop due to the cloud blocking out the sun for years. The only reason why the burrowing animals survived was because they burrowed down and drew warmth from the planets core.

So things like this happen every so often throughout the planets history and yes these events are beyond human control to prevent or cause. However, eventually our own gaseous emissions, if not stopped will cause a quicker mass extinction on our planet by causing the planet to experience more severe climate changes. And at the rate we cut down trees and reproduce, who's to say we also won't run short of oxygen. I mean there are 6.8 billion people on the planet and growing, but yet we continue to fill our atmosphere with poison gasses and cut down trees. So, with this rant being said I should clarify, I agree with both arguments presented in this debate, however, since the planet cannot change its nature, only humans can make the realization and change how we as a species run our planet and clean it up. It is our responsibility to do that much.

I mean if I walked past your house and threw a plastic cup into your garden, I can argue it's not much garbage it's nothing to worry about. But you wouldn't like the fact I am not showing your property and you any respect and you still have to clean it up. That's how I think of it it's natural for these things to happen, but with the level of intelligence and technology humans have today we should have better ways of obtaining, expending our fuels, and garbage, and we should have better , more affordable and readily available alternatives for energy. Otherwise if we continue on this path, where will we draw the line, eventually humans will just ruin this planet past the point of habitation, then we are all up a creek without a paddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now