Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[valta4065]

I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers 

So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?

Just the number, please. 

1900 on will do.

Let's hear it.

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

[1713853239]

1713853239

[1713853239]

1713853239

[1713853239]

1713853239

[1713853239]

1713853239

[1713853239]

1713853239

[valta4065]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/noaa-temperature-datas-accuracy-confirmed-despite-congressional-objections/

And LOL at the logical fallacies above. Spendolous and his same ol nonsense.

Spendolous, I will gladly go calculate a correlation coefficient if you pay me. I assume you'll either provide or give me the dataset. You will need to provide a trusted escrow given the intellectual dishonesty shown throughout this thread.

I've asked those who claim "correlation" for, duh, the CORRELATION.  Which they do claim is so astonishingly positive for those who are believers, at least.  Now I've asked for the correlation.  Those who made the claim need to support the claim.

Otherwise you/them appear to be resisting showing the validity of the claim made.  As if you have a weak or non existent case, and you've been caught in it.  As if you've been caught in a lie.

Stop the silliness please.  I assume those who claimed the evidence of correlation will show the number that supports fully, partly, or not, their claim.  Otherwise this last five to ten posts is yet another piece of evidence of the ducking, dodging and weaseling of politicalized climate science.

In science and engineering, the way this works is very simple.

Q.  What is "A"?
A.  Oh, of course.  "A" is 123.45%.
Q.  Thank you.  That is <<on and on discussion>>

Don't act like I did nothing to prove my claim or I brought no proof of any kind.
Maybe my proofs weren't "precise enough" for you but I gave you links to article talking about correlation establishment not about correlation consequences.
And as you're talking about science and engineering you should know that science isn't about being perfectly true but about agreeing on a level of precision. So if you request proofs (which you're in right to do of course as I was making a claim) you have to tell me which level of precision you require because I brought you proofs from the beginning!

[tvbcof]

...

Well my problem here is that as interesting as you links can be, I don't see difference of quality with the sources I can provide.

So please stop just saying that "this source is shit" or prove it. It doesn't help any kind of debate in any way! If you have legitimate doubts on sources I'm providing feel free to expose and explain thos doubts but just saying that what I'm saying is shit because the data I have come from a website which is plain shit isn't exactly what I would call a constructive argument.

I've described as best I can how I have come to think on this issue.  This so that others could contemplate my strategies and adopt some of them if they like or if they make sense.

To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet.  It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists.  I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.

My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish.  All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause."  Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses.  And they have.

For fun:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

[Spendulus]

I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers  

So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?

Just the number, please.  

1900 on will do.

Let's hear it.

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.

These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?  

I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.

Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.

Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958.  I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart.  A correlation coef can be done from this.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300

[Karloff]

I do not know how anyone, but in my country this year the cold winter. We had no anomalies in summer. It seems to me that the story about global warming is a fiction to fool people and earn money for studies.

[valta4065]

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.

These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?  

I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.

Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.

Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958.  I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart.  A correlation coef can be done from this.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300

ahahahahaahahahahah xD

Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.

If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.

[Spendulus]

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.

These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?  

I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.

Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.

Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958.  I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart.  A correlation coef can be done from this.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300

ahahahahaahahahahah xD

Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.

If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.

Take your pick of the datasets available, look on right hand side.

Here we go with satellite temperatures.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rss

Yes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958.  But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion.  As an example.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

[bigpattywhack]

I long for the day when all social media and the big sites people are using are decentralized platforms where the puppet masters can't push their agenda as they see fit. I think global warming is a real issue but I don't agree with the censorship.

[dwma]

I love when climate skeptics ask for facts that's the best aprt of the game! Exactly like for flat earth believers 

So you asked for a proof of correlation?
https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/co2-and-rising-global-temperatures

Or you can do it yourself with original data:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Of course all that only prove correlation and anyone claiming more than correlation to be proven is not telling the exact truth. Fact is that we see a correlation and a fucking good one. We also know what COULD be the cause, we can explain a link between Co2 ant temperature, explaining isn't proving though. But to prove it is nearly impossible as the climate system is something so complex that we basically can't have a perfect modelisation for it and I don't need to precise that experiments are out of the question no?

Just the number, please. 

1900 on will do.

Let's hear it.

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

Spendolus lives in his own world. I once posted a paper that basically picked apart how all the skeptics have a huge anti-government cognitive bias. Well.... we're on a cryptocurrency forum, so you put 2+2 together.

So the paper I put here.. Spendolus insisted up and down that it was behind a paywall. I checked it from multiple browsers and had no issue. He would rather go that route than even admit the paper exists.

I don't remember the details, I can go look it back up .. but the "oh it is behind a paywall" is another variation on "the science is wrong" which is what these people use to maintain their delusions to themselves.

[dwma]

I do not know how anyone, but in my country this year the cold winter. We had no anomalies in summer. It seems to me that the story about global warming is a fiction to fool people and earn money for studies.

In America, professors who study this stuff could typically get more money doing other things. If profs were after money they'd just go get a private industry job. This is such a rubbish angle to attempt to discredit global warming.

BTW, nice pointless post to get free ad for whatever ark is.

[dwma]

Anyway, check out this link.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/

[valta4065]

hmm...
You can't click on a link? :/
And what numbers are you talking about? You want the correlation coefficient that's it?
Sorry to say that but that's a bit a dumb question. I can give you one if you want but there will be one for each set of data and each period of time, that's why graphs are a better tool for this kind of analysis. Here is a link to someone who understood this very clearly, sadly it's not in English so I'm not sure most of you will have the use of it:
http://cedric.ringenbach.com/2009/07/19/correlation-entre-co2-et-temperature/

Here is a French study giving a correlation coefficient between CO2 and Temperature in Arctic of 0.75
http://lgge.osug.fr/IMG/fparrenin/courses/2008-2009/paleoclimats/Teiser-Gouttevin.pdf

A Nasa study between temperature anomalies on general between 1959 and 2010, coefficient of 0.9
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/_NCNIKqOzZw%5B1-25%5D

If you got any question I'll gladly answer it but try to be more precise please, asking for "numbers" is a bit too general ^^
Do you want the dataset?

So one actual correlation for a REGIONAL AREA, and another one for the last couple of decades.

These somehow support the BIG IDEA of global climate warming?  

I was seriously thinking more like 1880 - current, 1880 being when the land temp records started, or just for convenience, 1900 forward.

Of course, you only have those accurate co2 readings from 1958.

Here's a plot of temperature variations since 1880 and co2 since 1958.  I offset the temps by 300 just to get them up in the chart.  A correlation coef can be done from this.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/offset:300

ahahahahaahahahahah xD

Ok ok ok...
Wtf is this temperature recording?
Here is a recording I get but considering the temperature variation, not the absolute value. Absolute value on temperature? That's... Nonsense.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Don't you think that it's much closer to your graphs of CO2?
And I didn't find recording of CO2 measure from 1958. So the study I gave you showing the correlation between temperature from 1958 is the best I can give.
If you find a recording of CO2 older than 1958 please be my guest to calculate the correlation coefficient and show me that my claim is wrong. Because here is my claim:
There is a correlation between temperature variation and CO2 concentration in the data available, which means as far as I know from 1958.

If you want to go back further I didn't find precise value. It would be global studies and one of the link I gave you show the correlation between the two from geological times perspective.

Take your pick of the datasets available, look on right hand side.

Here we go with satellite temperatures.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/rss

Yes I can show Co2 datasets prior to 1958.  But your Warmeristas do not like those because they don't support your religion.  As an example.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.

Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200

So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.

[Spendulus]

.....
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.

Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200

So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.

No, you did not "show any correlation."   You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you?

Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length.  Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2."  An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2.  But not you.  You want to claim the entirety of a trend.

Also, you claim it's right to just scale the data and offset it anyway you would like.  How about we scale it somewhat differently?  How about this?  Instead of scaling (LYING) use the function "Normalize."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend

[valta4065]

.....
I see that as usual you ignore everything I write as long as it doesn't suit you.

Let's ignore the studies I linked you just because you don't like it. And give me more bullshit please.
Here are your link with only a scaling change, because you put again the absolute value of temperature which is incredibly precise of course.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-350/plot/wti/scale:200

So please stop. You're only bad faith here. There are arguments to oppose climate change thesis but clearly your "CO2 and temperature aren't correlated" is plain bullshit and I'm proving it every time I post. You still haven't post any proof yourself. I showed you correlation, asking you to counter my argument. And you haven't.

No, you did not "show any correlation."   You've now been forced to grapple with proving your argument from the actual data, haven't you?

Still ignoring my posts... I'm wondering if you even bother reading?
I've given you links towards multiple and precise studies showing a clear correlation between Co2 rise and temperature rise from 1958 and you never answered to that. You just claimed that it was not enough for you and wanted to challenge me on other things.

Well, here is your chart with your scaling factor, but with the temperature series extended its full and proper length.  Now you see the slight temperature increases occurring LONG, LONG before your "alarming increase in Co2."  An honest researcher at this point would say something like "Maybe the difference in the slope of the lines is Co2.  But not you.  You want to claim the entirety of a trend.

Lol, I take the time to try to understand and work with your dataset without you giving me the slightest explanation on where they're from or what do they represent or how they were recorded, I give you my vision of the work that should be done and rather than explaining me why or where my work is mistaken you accuse me of bad faith? If you want to make a perticular point then make it! Don't make me look for it in the middle of more than 25 different datasets and then accuse me of chosing "the wrong one"!

Also, you claim it's right to just scale the data and offset it anyway you would like.  How about we scale it somewhat differently?  How about this?  Instead of scaling (LYING) use the function "Normalize."

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/normalise/trend/plot/rss/normalise/trend

Yes. That's the idea of correlation. In the correlation calculation you can scale and offset your data as much as you want... That's the main point of showing correlation... Not my fault if you have no knowledge about mathematical methodologies...
Correlation is to show a relation between variations of 2 datasets. Thus, offset and scaling processes have NO INFLUENCE on the result!

Whereas Normalization is a non-linear application which means that it can't be used. If you normalise the different trend that means you destroy the variations! Do you even know what correlation means? By normalizing what you're trying to do is showing there is no LINEAR CORRELATION between the sets of data, and of course there is none! who claimed anything like this?


So please, check the definition of correlation, what is a linear application and why you can't use non-linear applications in correlation calculation.

[valta4065]

And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.

Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.

In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...

I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.

You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.
So go on in your lie, after all people like you are closer to religious fanatics than the terrorists so it's useless to try to ARGUE with you with things like logic.

[tvbcof]

...
In America, professors who study this stuff could typically get more money doing other things. If profs were after money they'd just go get a private industry job. This is such a rubbish angle to attempt to discredit global warming.
...

In academia proper there are a higher percentage of individuals who are relatively more driven by philosophical considerations than by money.  'Global warming' is one of a family of issues with marketing tailored to this segment.

Some scientists fall victim to the (almost certainly false) belief that they are working toward a sort of a Utopia which is heavily influenced by scientists like themselves because management of the Utopia leverages their talents.  This is the line they are fed by those with a deeper understanding (and deeper pockets.)  In the more immediate space, there is a practical need for grants, career advancement, spending money, etc.  Scientist are, at their core, also human after all, and there is an obvious correlation between success and failure in academia and the willingness to promote or damage the party line on 'climate change.'

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/

[Spendulus]

And I agree with you, it's not the best correlation I've ever seen.
But I guess that if we can show a clear similar trend between the two with your extremely limited dataset and graph plot I'd say that it's already a good sign of the general analysis.

Especially considering I gave you like 4 or 5 different studies showing a correlation but that you just... refused.
You just refuse my studies and arguments. You don't negate them you just refuse to consider them because they don't suit your point of view.

In fact I don't even know why I'm still here...

I gave you precise arguments supported my multiple studies, datasets and explanations.

You refused them without the slightest argument. Your only argument was "a study from 1958 to nowadays is not enough" but you never brought a more general one showing my claim was wrong.

A study and a correlation from 1958 forward is not enough if the prior hundred years ALSO SHOWS A VERY SIMILAR WARMING PATTERN.  Only by cutting that out can you produce the "Alarming Data" from 1958 forward.  If you agree that the prior hundred years was a constant CO2, then we could do a proper correlation, by taking the beginning Hawaii data from 1958 and running it backwards.

Agreed?

[dwma]

To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet.  It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists.  I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.

My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish.  All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause."  Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses.  And they have.

For fun:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.

[yuiyuga]

To me, the 'climate change' thing, when viewed from a variety of angles and reasonably well studied, is one of the most obvious scams I've come across yet.  It's also probably the most well funded so it is not surpriseing to see it persists.  I have not qualms about calling out 'shit sources' in street lingo.

My thesis is that 'climate change' is being used as a Swiss army knife for any project and any other scammers wish.  All it takes is for some (not "97%") scientists to bend their ethics under the justification that it's "for a good cause."  Upon this foundation the establishment media can build a spectacular looking stage show for the masses.  And they have.

For fun:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.

The funding for scholars comes from governments. Officials also steal money from government programs. Additionally, the repartition of the energy market can bring in big money. Why you do not consider that under this can use the money?

[tvbcof]

...

I love the idea of 'oooh spooky conspiracy'.  I guess if you have cognitive issues that prevent from you agreeing with science, that has to be your only out?

If one is to question this premise that it is a paid off conspiracy, you might start with....  Where do they get their funding?  Is it all that money being provided so that those profitable solar companies can do better?  Oh, the whole world is up in arms because a few guys with phds need a job?  It is just nonsensical.

This world is run by oil money. If there is money being put into anything, it is into the skeptic side. Global warming does not agree with oil company profits.

You guys are so ass-backwards.

The whole climate change scam and the reasons behind it are pretty much completely out in the open.  See my last post.

Most of the people calling this spade a spade within the scientific community and without are, like me, pretty much classical liberals.  So it seems in my research at least.

In researching this topic it was striking how, up to about 10 years ago, the global warming scammers made no secret of their view and promise that the 'green revolution' was going to be a fantastic way to make big money in a variety of ways.  And they have.  Mostly off the backs of the vanishing middle class and the poor, and leveraging the muscle of central government.  This 'make big bucks now' sales pitch was a little bit to much like a flashing neon 'scam alert' sign which didn't align with the 'save the earth' rhetoric so the marketing has shifted recently...but the money inflows from the scam has not.

To test your capacity for logical analysis a bit, try this:  You have an oil company and a lot of known reserves (and most of the govt) under your control which locks out competition.  You would like:

 1) higher product prices
 2) lower product prices

The obvious answer is #1.  'Austerity' no matter how it is achieved has a positive effect on the price point of the supply/demand curve.  This explains why, try as they might, attempts to tie the 'skeptics', 'deniers', 'climate heretics' (pick your favorite term) to 'big oil' fall pretty flat.  Various energy companies seem to fund various 'environments' groups mostly as a way to curry favor for their own unique segment (gas, oil, coal, etc) at the expense of others in their general energy space and there isn't much left over for those who care calling out out the CO2 scam generally.

Any competent engineer is going to know that actually deprecating hydro-carbon fuel use in the near to mid (if not long term) future is a non-threat.  Windmills and solar farms or so expensive and inconvenient that pricing their reserves against a market driven by these technologies is a dream come true and promises riches beyond imagination.