Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/07/2010 11:44:04 PM PDT by caveat emptor
Settled science?: Could all of the percentages below really be correct? A huge math problem, and sanity check, for alarmists: If you could ever sort out the top hundred natural and anthropogenic causes of the 20th century warming, the sum of the contributions would have to be about 100%. If you get a number like 1200%, something's wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at tomnelson.blogspot.com ...
AFP: McCartney calls for meat-free day to cut CO2
McCartney, a longtime environmental campaigner, told the EU magazine that there is "clear" evidence that meat production is "major contributor" to climate change. ... "A lower-meat diet could see greenhouse gases reduced by as much as 80 per cent," he said.
6 Things You Should Repair Instead of Replace
...experts estimate that 44% of U.S. global warming emissions are due to products and packaging.
Climate Change - What you can do about climate change and global warming: Tips from a Nature Conservancy Scientist
In the United States, automobiles produce over 20 percent of total carbon emissions...electricity generation produces 40 percent of carbon emissions from the United States.
Global Oceans Show Potentially Devastating Effects of Climate Change
The ocean has absorbed about 30 percent of human-produced carbon dioxide to date
GlobalWarming.House.Gov | Issues | Global Warming
Buildings currently account for 38 percent of carbon emissions in the United States—more than either the transportation or industrial sectors—and consume 70 percent of the electricity.
Deforestation: The Leading Cause of CO2 Emissions
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in October 2006 that deforestation accounts for 25 to 30 percent of the release of greenhouse gases
Methane – A Ticking Bomb | Global Warming Basics | Allianz Knowledge
Contribution to Human-Induced Climate Change: 23 percent
HowStuffWorks "Do cows pollute as much as cars?"
Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's greenhouse gases.
Ordinary Soot a Major Cause of Global Warming : News
Soot, or black carbon, may be responsible for 15 to 30 percent of global warming
There's more.
“Could all of the percentages below really be correct? A huge math problem, and sanity check,”
Oh not to worry. There is a simple explanation.
It is called Marxist Math.
First, PROVE that globull warming even exists. Use real data, Beatle boy. Otherwise, STFU McCartney.
Million Man Marxist Methane Mega Math!
Greenhouse theory is pure bunkum.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
It Is Impossible For A 100 ppm Increase In Atmospheric CO2 Concentration To Cause Global Warming
The average level of CO2 is less than half of what is measured at any particular point in time and increases with the levels of CO2 actually measured by several percentage points. Such variation is fully in line with predictions that variation would be produced by the unevenness of contributing factors.
Of course I don't have the training “climate scientists” do.
Just with the crowd I run with, you'll find that the pros in the “hard” sciences question whether climatology is a science at all.
We have a whole sect, that views the majority of their science to be modeling complex systems. Well and good, but the problem is the disturbingly poor performance of their models at describing the actual systems. In a disturbingly high percentage of cases, the models and actual observations are not in accordance.
As for me, I figure the climatology simulators are basing their models on faulty PC premises. But that's just me.
I had a long and tiresome ‘discussion’ with a chick from Cnada who claimed that computer modeling was hard science. She also claimed to have advanced degrees, but I doubt she did. I kept demanding proof of her claims, she got totally pissed off and would not respond. LOL!
That is because they do not even understand what they are modeling. They need to drop the silly metric of temperature without bias for humidity. And then start to use the heat content metric. Then they would at least be using the right metric. Then they would need to start monitoring the heat content of oceans across all depths. The atmosphere heat content is secondary. By monitoring the temperature of the atmosphere and ignoring ocean heat content across all depths, they came up with the incorrect conclusion that El Nino means the Earth is warming. During an El Nino the Earth is simply transferring heat content from the Pacific Ocean to the Atmosphere. Would like to suggest they start thinking outside their ape cages. This planet does not travel around the ape.
Could it really be guesses by today’s Scientists... Surely not, since Science requires proof...or maybe today it does NOT.
Oh well, they can produce their Theories though and that is fine, just state them as theories. The problems occur when they want us to spend trillions to prevent something that is just theory. Come on folks, you may actually believe these theories but when it bankrupts nations, can’t you be at a least bit skeptical? How about when those that proclaim these problems stand to make millions?
What, no skeptics yet... Just what does it take anyway...
Typical. I wonder if music boy would like to have a math shootout with Burt Rutan.
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Burt has this nasty habit of getting his number right.
Agreed. GIGO. Cheers!
Global warming an Mann-made. Micheal Mann made it up.
If so, science has really slid, like Senator Moynihan wrote "Defining deviancy down". What used to be considered less than real science is now considered "real hard science".
Where are the greenhouse experiments, complete with a scale model of the earth, oceans, "greenhouse" atmosphere (including water vapor), and sun equal radiation field, etc.?
Why is Mars cold?
Why is mars warming?
Models (that have not been manipulated for PC outcomes) do nothing more than scientific guesses based on assumptions and a limited variable field...a variable field that can be handled. In reality, the assumptions may be wrong, the variable field may be inadequate and may exclude variables that are important. In other words, the model could and most likely is wrong, especially the farther out in time from t=0 you go.
The other part of the "hard science" of climatology that is a farce is the trending. Any 10th grade student can trend data and make graphs in excel or even on paper. How is trending real science? The answer is the data that goes into the trends. But as we see, they are manipulating the data that goes into the trends to steer the outcome. So the publicly disclosed GW research is not real science, it is a fraudulent 10th grade science fair project, complete with plagiarized information for the purpose of manipulating public policy and obtaining a steady stream of grant money.
In short, it is fraud on a massive scale and should be prosecuted. Instead, the Obama administration is embracing the fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.