No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Past 160 Years

[SB Shock]

Study found that there has been no rise in Carbon Dioxide due to man's emission in the atmosphere past 160 years or even last 5 decades.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

[SubGod22]

:shock:

[rjl]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Past 160 Years

Study found that there has been no rise in Carbon Dioxide due to man's emission in the atmosphere past 160 years or even last 5 decades.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm

From the same website:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

But go ahead. Believe only the information that suits your political views.

[Capitol Shock]

Yes, that global warming has really been heating things up this week.

Global warming is a hoax.

[rjl]

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if either of you actually read the initial article.

If it were to be believed 100% (which by simply searching for "carbon" on the same website shows it's the only article even remotely discrediting the widely accepted scientific theory that atmospheric carbon is a present concern and is causing global climate change compared to many articles that fall in line), researching this quote from the OP article . . .

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

. . . on the same website (keeping it simple for you), turns up this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317094729.htm

In other words, taking your own article you used to support your argument to its full conclusion makes it just more evidence against your argument.

This, of course, begs a few questions.

Do you read the articles you post before you post them?
If so, do you only get out of them what you want to get out of them?
Are you so happy to see any information, no matter how questionable the material or source, that you think supports your viewpoint that you run to share it with all your GOP buddies?
As a follow up to the question immediately above, are you simply looking for pats on the back from other posters on the predominantly GOP friendly "politics" section on Shockernet? Because, if so, you might want to set your goals a little higher. Talk about a simple task.

[ISASO]

It seems that the frequency of substantitive posts from Obama supporters on this forum has plummeted in proportion with the free-fall of the President's own approval ratings nationwide.

Coincidence? Disillusionment? Buyers remorse? Embarrassment?

[kcshocker11]

It seems that the frequency of substantitive posts from Obama supporters on this forum has plummeted in proportion with the free-fall of the President's own approval ratings nationwide.

Coincidence? Disillusionment? Buyers remorse? Embarrassment?

None of the above. Its basketball season and why waste our time! 8)

[ISASO]

As usual, not much of an answer.

[SB Shock]

If it were to be believed 100% (which by simply searching for "carbon" on the same website shows it's the only article even remotely discrediting the widely accepted scientific theory that atmospheric carbon is a present concern and is causing global climate change compared to many articles that fall in line), researching this quote from the OP article . . .

It is called a scientific journal - it publishes scientific articles. Since climate gate, dissenting scientist have been embolden to publish their studies. Were seeing more and more be publish.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Anybody see the intellectual dishonesty? anybody? anybody? We have been told that there is man made CO2 building up that has caused the latest warming, or as the followers of this religion would profess "created the hock stick graph".

But we start hearing stories about NASA who has to go back and correct errors in there data. We find scientist at the very least hiding data that doesn't support their cause (and funding) and now they saying "ok....ummmm, no man is impacting nature ability to absorb CO2 and we will have global warming in the future....yeah, yeah that is our story today. Forget all that other stuff we said - we were just trying to get your attention.




taken from: http://www.mikesmithenterprises.com/blog.cfm

Comparison of NOAA 30 day forecast with actual. Sorry, if NOAA scientist can't get even get a climate forecast even in the ball park for a month, I doubt they have the capability to be even close in 5, 10, 15 or 30 years down the road.

The real shame has been the hit to our scientific community. Government has pretty much politicized all scientific research. If your research isn't is on somebody agenda your not getting any funding. Were seeing it NOAA and NASA. And the NASA research affects this town because the $$ are no longer available for research in areas that would help the aircraft industry and or allows NASA to partner with companies to help progress research in certain areas like crash simulation, flutter, bird strike simulation, etc.

[Capitol Shock]

We can't determine what the weather is going to do next week but we can determine that man is the cause of global warming based on evidence dug up from the ocean bottom supposedly from thousands of years ago?

Give me a break! All I know is that it is friggen cold outside right now and this is a much colder snap then I can remember in a long time. I'm sure all the liberals will say it's due to global warming.

If it gets warmer, it's because of global warming...if we go into another ice age, it's global warming.

Couldn't one say that because we know there was at least one ice age and we came out of it that the globe warmed? And that happened before the invention of cars and carbon dioxide producing equipment? Thank God the liberals weren't around back then or car probably wouldn't have been invented!

[Maggie]

I have multiple problems with this issue – some of which I will outline briefly below. It is not quite simple as either side makes out.

(1) I think proponents of global warming have to recognize, in light of Climategate (or whatever you want to call it), they have a serious creditability problem. The e-mails show, depending on your outlook, anything from sloppiness, pettiness, and dishonesty to outright fraud among some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Now the e-mails don’t show that the scientists don’t believe global warming is real. Rather, they show that the scientists believe in global warming so much, they think they’re justified in doing anything to fight it. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, you never ask questions when Gaia’s on your side. This is, in and of itself, a huge problem.

What the e-mail don’t disprove, as far as I can tell, is global warming theory. That said I've never had any illusions that scientists are other than human, often wrong and silly, and occasionally guilty of deliberate fraud. Science is a human enterprise, so that's what you'd expect. You'd particularly expect it in a field where (1) the data is extraordinarily difficult to collect and interpret, and (2) big political interests are vested in the results. Global warming meets both criteria.

Does the political connection corrupt science? Yes it does, though in different ways in different areas of science. It has the biggest corrupting effect on the softest science - things like global warming, where the data is indecisive enough (it seems to me) to be open to easy political manipulation. Politics also corrupts the human sciences, suppressing research in areas where it's feared results will crash up against widespread entrenched beliefs and emotions. It's much less corrupting elsewhere. I doubt if planetary astronomers, or entomologists, or paleontologists, care much what politicians think or do, or what the regnant social fad tells people they should believe (or pretend to believe) if they wish to avoid losing caste.

(2) Many proponents outside the scientific community (and some inside) have admitted on occasion that they don’t really care that much if the science is right or wrong. Because they believe global warming is a useful Sorellian myth to drive the organization of our society and political economy in directions they favor. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means their judgment is not very trustworthy.

(3) The question that should really be asked is the following: Are the results out of the global warming field sufficiently dispositive to justify colossal international programs of action, designed and executed by (and, career-wise, for) plump, unaccountable globalist bureaucrats?

I say without dispositive evidence, such programs should be resisted on principle by everyone who cares about individual liberty and national sovereignty.

[kcshocker11]

As usual, not much of an answer.

As usual all thats required! 8)

[ISASO]

And you chose to ignore the three on-topic posts after mine.

Heck, maybe you too think Al Gore is full of crap and that Obama's Cap and Tax power-grab program is also crap. Otherwise, wouldn't you have provided a rebuttal?

[wsushox1]

Global Warming is a bunch of BS. Lets see hear during the 90's when all the warming going on the Pacific (one of the largest pieces of earth) was experiencing EXTREME warmth. There several +2.0C degree anomaly El Ninos in a row!! That was unheard of at that time. All the heat radiated into the atmosphere and caused it to be warmer. Now it has cooled down causing us to be COOLER than normal.

Now don't say the Moronic "Where is Global Warming now" whenever it gets cold. That is such a dumbshi* thing to say. Does not make you look very smart. The upcoming cold weather is caused by EXTREME Greenland Blocking. 1068 MB High Pressure up there blocking the arctic air from escaping over the Pacific and sending it rushing south into the US.

That is all.

[SB Shock]

Global Warming is a bunch of BS. Lets see hear during the 90's when all the warming going on the Pacific (one of the largest pieces of earth) was experiencing EXTREME warmth.

Extreme warmth? LOL. Here plot of the temperature trends



Here is plot showing near term temperature trends and the deleted data that the ICAA didn't want you to see (in RED).

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.


Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.