Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming

[rushmc 23]

The science is not settled



Thursday, November 29, 2007
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming
Guest Blog by David Evans, Science Speak

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1. 1985 – 2003. Old ice core data led us strongly suspect that CO2 causes global warming.
2. 2003 – 2007. New ice core data eliminated previous reason for suspecting CO2. No evidence to suspect or exonerate CO2.
3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The paper discusses how the ice core changes, missing greenhouse signature in the real data and the recent waning of the warming all suggest that carbon emissions are not behind the changes we have experienced in recent decades.


See larger image here.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AMSU_Global_.jpg

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then! See the full paper here. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. David is also a former believer in man-made warming who converted to skeptic.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED

Thursday, November 29, 2007
Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer
Guest Blog by John Reynolds, Independent Scientist (and smoker)

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1. 1970-1990. Old medical data led us to strongly believe that smoking might be associated with lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and COPD.
2. 1990-2005. New medical data weakened previous reason for suspecting smoking as a cause of cancer. No evidence to exonerate or blame smoking.
3. From 2005: Know for sure that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking no longer a suspect.

The papers discuss how changes in medical research, missing clinical evidence in the real data and the recent reduction in incidence of lung cancer prove conclusively that smoking does not cause cancer.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
http://myblog.ottawaarts.com/archives/2005/10/get-it-straight-smoking-does-not-cause-cancer/
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_rjr/500008693-8722.html

Take that, all you smoking alarmists with your political agenda of taking over the world!

[rushmc 23]

Smoking?
Agian?

Come on billvon

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Smoking? Agian?

I knew you wouldn't understand!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Smoking? Agian?

I knew you wouldn't understand!

I understand you have to steal the thread! I understand you will not consider anything else if it does not fit your template. I understand you are more stuborn than I am.

I understand your smoking example is bull shit.

I dont have to understand anything else

Are you having fun yet? I sure as hell am

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>I dont have to understand anything else

And there, sir, you have hit the nail exactly on the head. You don't have to understand anything that you don't want to, that confuses you or that you disagree with. Nor does anyone else. (With the possible exception of people who make decisions that affect the rest of us, like doctors, politicial leaders, scientists and the like. It's important that they do understand stuff.)

>Are you having fun yet? I sure as hell am

Good! At least you're getting something out of it!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I dont have to understand anything else

And there, sir, you have hit the nail exactly on the head. You don't have to understand anything that you don't want to, that confuses you or that you disagree with. Nor does anyone else. (With the possible exception of people who make decisions that affect the rest of us, like doctors, politicial leaders, scientists and the like. It's important that they do understand stuff.)

>Are you having fun yet? I sure as hell am

Good! At least you're getting something out of it!

One more time you do not address the content. You go after me only with some kind of off the wall smoking post.

I admit I am still learning. You sir, act like you know it all already.

I will keep posting these as I read them. I will also await the day when when the next man made, killing the planet scare, emerges to help those, that think like you, try to push your ideals and green morality on the rest of us.

Oh, and I will post my replys in the same tone and civility as you. So the tone of these threads are in your lap

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Not going away

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Rush . . . I want you to carefully look at that graphic you linked.

On the left side, the one marking December 1978, the temperature anomaly is about -0.275 and the CO2 level is about 340 ppm.

On the right side, both the temperature AND CO2 level have gone UP.

How the F do you not see a correlation there? What the F do you think that graphic disproves?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Rush . . . I want you to carefully look at that graphic you linked.

On the left side, the one marking December 1978, the temperature anomaly is about -0.275 and the CO2 level is about 340 ppm.

On the right side, both the temperature AND CO2 level have gone UP.

How the F do you not see a correlation there? What the F do you think that graphic disproves?

Scale it out dude. The science is not settled. That is and has been my point.

I have worked stats. There are not now nor will they ever be simple.

CO2 trails temps in many studies. They do not lead.

Historical studies show the same. Historical studies show higher temps and higher CO2 levels and those studies DIO NOT support the Global Warming Alarmists assurtions.

At least is some studies

The science is not settled

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>CO2 trails temps in many studies. They do not lead.

True. Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs had neither SUV's nor coal fired power plants.

>The science is not settled

It's not settled on gravity either - but for some reason we continue to use parachutes when we jump out of airplanes. I guess we're all "slaves to the consensus." Let's hope some brave denier comes along and proves all that gravity alarmism isn't settled!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>CO2 trails temps in many studies. They do not lead.

True. Contrary to popular belief, dinosaurs had neither SUV's nor coal fired power plants.You have stated this nutty thing before. The point (that you want to denie) is CO2 levels have been higher that what we have today. There were no SUVs then. Even then the temps lead CO2 levels.
>The science is not settled

It's not settled on gravity either - but for some reason we continue to use parachutes when we jump out of airplanes. I guess we're all "slaves to the consensus." Let's hope some brave denier comes along and proves all that gravity alarmism isn't settled!

More rediculas comparisons. Just like the science you support.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>The point (that you want to denie) is CO2 levels have been higher that
>what we have today.

Correct! Can you think of anything else that releases CO2?

Besides which, I thought you didn't believe that CO2 causes warming! I think you're getting your positions confused. You can't believe all the denier positions at once.

Here's a quick reference to the top 10 denier arguments if you're interested in the science:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Another interesting tidbit:

Fred Singer, who you have quoted before to support the idea that the climate is not warming, has now admitted that global warming is real and just about unstoppable.

[rushmc 23]

You can keep your label making sites (it is just the PC crowds way of trying to silence others). I understand the SUV and old lizard arguments, smokers and gravity statements a are made because YOU KNOW the science is settled. You want be responsible for more highway deaths by pushing CAFE standards and make everybody live like you think they should. Fine. But your intimidation tactics will continue to fail

Your smug eletist position requires to talk down to those who disagree with you. You really should stop embarrassing yourself and try to at least have a civil exchange

Oh, and as for warming being unstoppable? That fits sir. We cant cause or stop it. It works both ways

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

More rediculas comparisons. Just like the science you support.

So are you still claiming to be open minded, or have you pretty much thrown that facade away for good now?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So are you still claiming to be open minded, or have you pretty much thrown that facade away for good now?

Come on now.. its so much easier.. when you get your science from the pulpit on Sunday... and your golbal warming talking points from Lush Rimjob all week long

[sfc 1]

Quote

You want be responsible for more highway deaths by pushing CAFE standards and make everybody live like you think they should. Fine. But your intimidation tactics will continue to fail

Fail, hardly, if you didn't know congress just voted to raise the CAFE standards, seems like the lefties are getting their point across quite well :)

Quote

Your smug eletist position requires to talk down to those who disagree with you. You really should stop embarrassing yourself and try to at least have a civil exchange

You call someone a smug elitist and then ask for a civil exchange, are you sure it is BV that is embarrassing himself?

You come across as someone whose position is driven by a political and/or religious agenda, I find it hard to be persuaded by this kind of argument.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

More rediculas comparisons. Just like the science you support.

So are you still claiming to be open minded, or have you pretty much thrown that facade away for good now?

I fail to see how he knows it's rediculas (sic) since I have yet to give an opinion, and just last week he told us in this very forum that his opinion on matters of science is based on (and opposite to) mine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED

Thursday, November 29, 2007
Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer
Guest Blog by John Reynolds, Independent Scientist (and smoker)

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:
1. 1970-1990. Old medical data led us to strongly believe that smoking might be associated with lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and COPD.
2. 1990-2005. New medical data weakened previous reason for suspecting smoking as a cause of cancer. No evidence to exonerate or blame smoking.
3. From 2005: Know for sure that smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking no longer a suspect.

The papers discuss how changes in medical research, missing clinical evidence in the real data and the recent reduction in incidence of lung cancer prove conclusively that smoking does not cause cancer.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
http://myblog.ottawaarts.com/archives/2005/10/get-it-straight-smoking-does-not-cause-cancer/
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm
http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_rjr/500008693-8722.html

Take that, all you smoking alarmists with your political agenda of taking over the world!

Your comments are a bit off the mark in this case. At least the last link I looked at concerned passive smoking and not 1st hand smoking, which you used in your comparison.

While passive "smoking" cannot be healthy, is is certainly far removed from 1st hand smoking. The data to support the cancer causing properties of passive smoking is somewhat more shakey than the data on smoking.

If we really want to use these sorts of analogies, what about the belief that eating high cholesterol foods causes heart attacks? I suppose you think the science is settled on that one too.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You want be responsible for more highway deaths by pushing CAFE standards and make everybody live like you think they should. Fine. But your intimidation tactics will continue to fail

Fail, hardly, if you didn't know congress just voted to raise the CAFE standards, seems like the lefties are getting their point across quite well :)

Quote

Your smug eletist position requires to talk down to those who disagree with you. You really should stop embarrassing yourself and try to at least have a civil exchange

You call someone a smug elitist and then ask for a civil exchange, are you sure it is BV that is embarrassing himself?

You come across as someone whose position is driven by a political and/or religious agenda, I find it hard to be persuaded by this kind of argument.

I am not the one that keeps posting about gravity, smokers and SUV when the dinosours lived in a Global Warming thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Your comments are a bit off the mark in this case. At least the last link
>I looked at concerned passive smoking and not 1st hand smoking, which
>you used in your comparison.

Yep. Just as many of the links in RushMC's reference have little to do with global warming. But if you are anxious to post as much stuff like that as possible you might overlook that.

>If we really want to use these sorts of analogies, what about the belief
>that eating high cholesterol foods causes heart attacks?

High LDL levels (specifically a high LDL to HDL ratio) contribute to coronary artery disease. Diet (among other things) affects HDL/LDL ratios, and foods that contain a lot of trans fatty acids (for example) increase your LDL level. Bad food does not "cause" heart attacks any more than not going to school causes unemployment later in life - but they are related.

However, if I wanted to keep eating Twinkies, I could no doubt find 600 reference on the net that say things like:

the LDL thing is all a myth
"I'm 99 years old and have been eating 10 Twinkies a day since I was 10!"
Doctors are part of the evil health system in the US and they are trying to deceive you

Etc etc.

Needless to say, since industry is not nearly as reliant upon trans fats as it is on oil, you will get much less funding of an organized denial industry.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You want be responsible for more highway deaths by pushing CAFE standards and make everybody live like you think they should. Fine. But your intimidation tactics will continue to fail

Fail, hardly, if you didn't know congress just voted to raise the CAFE standards, seems like the lefties are getting their point across quite well :)

Quote

Your smug eletist position requires to talk down to those who disagree with you. You really should stop embarrassing yourself and try to at least have a civil exchange

You call someone a smug elitist and then ask for a civil exchange, are you sure it is BV that is embarrassing himself?

You come across as someone whose position is driven by a political and/or religious agenda, I find it hard to be persuaded by this kind of argument.

I am not the one that keeps posting about gravity, smokers and SUV when the dinosours lived in a Global Warming thread

Are you saying that because you think BV is posting about other things it justifies comments like "smug elitist".
I think he is making a valid point, it is analogous to you post.

[billvon 3,120]

>I am not the one that keeps posting about gravity, smokers and SUV
>when the dinosours lived in a Global Warming thread

The smoking-danger denial lobby is, in many cases, funded by the same people, uses the same tactics, and desires the same results as the climate change denial lobby.

I'll put this in RushMC terms to see if you can understand it:

Imagine, if you will, an organization funded by George Soros. They help Dan Rather come up with some supposed 'proof' that George Bush evaded the draft. It turns out to be false.

Now, imagine that during the 2008 election, George Soros funds an effort that helps Wolf Blitzer uncover "proof" that Mike Huckabee evaded the draft.

Would you again say "I dont have to understand anything?" Would you trust Blitzer? When people ask if Huckabee evaded the draft, would you say "the facts aren't settled?" Perhaps he evaded it, perhaps he didn't - and we CERTAINLY shouldn't vote for him until they are settled?

Or would you perhaps think that since the funding, tactics and people are similar, you might not want to trust Blitzer's claim?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I am not the one that keeps posting about gravity, smokers and SUV
>when the dinosours lived in a Global Warming thread

The smoking-danger denial lobby is, in many cases, funded by the same people, uses the same tactics, and desires the same results as the climate change denial lobby.

I'll put this in RushMC terms to see if you can understand it:

Imagine, if you will, an organization funded by George Soros. They help Dan Rather come up with some supposed 'proof' that George Bush evaded the draft. It turns out to be false.

Now, imagine that during the 2008 election, George Soros funds an effort that helps Wolf Blitzer uncover "proof" that Mike Huckabee evaded the draft.

Would you again say "I dont have to understand anything?" Would you trust Blitzer? When people ask if Huckabee evaded the draft, would you say "the facts aren't settled?" Perhaps he evaded it, perhaps he didn't - and we CERTAINLY shouldn't vote for him until they are settled?

Or would you perhaps think that since the funding, tactics and people are similar, you might not want to trust Blitzer's claim?

Once again off the mark
Fact, you are sure man is cause globlal warming through co2 eimissions
Fact, you dont give a fuck what any other sceince or scientists say IF they dont agree with fact number one
Fact, you belittle anybody who thinks and brings data that does not support fact number one
Conculsion? Only you can prevent forest fires

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Another interesting tidbit:

Fred Singer, who you have quoted before to support the idea that the climate is not warming, has now admitted that global warming is real and just about unstoppable.