kipposhi

you don't need to study environmental science to know the truth.  Evidence from climategate scandal is sufficient.

kipposhi

都唔咁講呀﹐就係坊間實在太多唔同意見﹐唔同research好多都有茅盾。我呢D唔識science係唔知信得邊個"專家"﹐要有個底先消化到街外D scandal。

-- 凍到突點大C姐

...
大C姐 發表於 2010-2-3 08:07

That is because the emails from warmist researchers showed they altered the data on global warming search.

Emails:

"I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say '1000 scientists signed' or '1500 signed'. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story." - Joseph Alcamo, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

"I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back." - Michael Mann, Lead Author IPCC (2001)

"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone." - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"...If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals." - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)

Subject: John L. Daly [Skeptic] Dead

"...this is cheering news!" - Phil Jones, Director Climatic Research Unit (CRU)

"Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted." - Ben Santer, Lead Author IPCC (1995)

You may want to download the emails hacked from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and read it yourself.

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/FOI2009.zip

East Anglia Emails (Searchable)

kipposhi

Now we know that they inflated the numbers.  But does that mean there's no global warming then?
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-3 14:21

The warmists are supposed to prove that there is global warming.  But it is not supposed that other people try to disprove the existence of global warming.  That is the rule in the field of science.

kipposhi

I am not interested in Science.  I am only interested in Logic.
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-3 15:23

Even the argument of global warming is flaw.  Then is that enough for you?

kipposhi

我淨係想知買左carbon credit D錢到底做過/做左D乜。
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-2-3 18:44

hoho, someone in this forum finally notices some interesting part of the "solution" of global warming.

kipposhi

我沒有認真研究那些數據，亦不否認有人把溫室效應誇大其詞。我只知道最近看過的planet earth，polar bear因為北極冰塊溶化，它找不到可供棲身的浮冰，找不到食物，只能不斷地游，最後力竭。下場怎樣都可想而知。
也 ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-2-3 15:45

Those documentaries are de facto propagandas.

1.  Some reports state that polar bear population is increasing.

2.  The ice in the north pole melting is not due "global warming".  The temperature of water under the ice is lower that of the ice.  That causes the bottom part of the ice melting.

kipposhi

i always wonder.
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2010-2-3 18:59

This may be my fault to miss it as  I do not read every thread in this forum.

kipposhi

How is it flawed?  I am no expert on this topic.
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-3 23:39

As there are so many wrong information in the argument presented by warmists, I will just pick one of them now.

Carbon Dioxide:

"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet." - Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

The above few quotes are easy to understand, right?

kipposhi

好多野都好難project, 正如香港既高鐵咁, project 個客運量已經比人話錯哂, 更何況而家係講緊成個地球? 係人都想有數字, 我都好想知道如果繼續咁落去, 地球可以捱到幾多年, 不過, 你真係覺得有人會答到你咩(而個答案又要準確架woh)? 咁而家冇concrete 既figure, 係唔係可以乜都唔駛做呢?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2010-2-4 00:35

Solution for 高鐵 is very easy.  If this can really earn money, the private sector will do it for sure.

kipposhi

So let's assume that CO2 is good for trees.
But how do we know whether it caused global warming or not?

One of the quotes says that historically CO2 levels were much higher.  Which period are we talking about?  Were human existant at that time?
快樂牛郎 發表於 2010-2-4 02:15

For your first question:  

First, we have to define global warming.
Second, is that "global warming" (or  "climate change") really a problem?
Last but not least, what is the cause of "global warming"?  caused by human activity or nature?  (This is the most important question.  The one Al Gore talks about is called "Anthropogenic [Man-Made] Global Warming".)

Even according to IPCC, the global average temperature has increased 0.6°C only over last century.  Does it really matter?



That period should be last 600 million years.  It talks about the average CO2 concentration.
Whether human existed at that time?  We don't know because human have not developed time traveling technology yet.  But the first human is believed to have existed about 200,00 years ago as it is the oldest human fossil has been found.