Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  
Author: Subject: Lying With Science
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:13
Lying With Science


You can quite easily create a graph that is accurate but very misleading. I contend that the Keeling Curve was made to mislead, to frighten. Let's look at it.




Now why is it misleading? First, because it has a non-zero base. This dramatically increases the slope, making it The Scary Graph.
Atmospheric CO2 from all sources has been increasing at ~1.3 ppmv for decades. This isn't about to change any time soon for any reason.

If you redraw the graph with a zero base in ppmv, it flattens out very considerably. If you redraw the graph with ONLY anthropogenic CO2, it gets almost pool table flat. If you add water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas, well all of the scariness is gone.

Fraud is lying with the intention to deceive, and to profit therefrom. Too many *academics* continue to lie and deceive as they rake in hundreds of millions of government research dollars to perpetuate the climate change fraud, exposed here by Nobel Laureate (Physics) Ivar Giaever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=442&v=TCy_UO...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sulaiman
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2466
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: Shah Alam, Malaysia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:19


I assume that the graph is drawn to show detail, and save on paper.

It is no more misleading than using Centigrade or Farenheight as a scale.




CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
View user's profile View All Posts By User
fusso
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1508
Registered: 23-6-2017
Location: ∥ universe
Member Is Offline

Mood: 1500!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:36


Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
If you redraw the graph with ONLY anthropogenic CO2, it gets almost pool table flat. If you add water vapor, THE dominant greenhouse gas, well all of the scariness is gone.
Please provide the source of these 2 data sets.



Useful sites:
Balance Chemical Equation: http://www.webqc.org/balance.php
Molecular mass and elemental composition calculator: https://www.webqc.org/mmcalc.php
Solubility table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_table
Azeotrope table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotrope_tablesIt's not crime if noone finds out - Nyaruko
List of materials made by ScienceMadness users: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nmJ8uq-h4IkXPxD5svnT...
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:37


1. How much "paper" did I use in presenting the Scary Graph? Zero.
2. Can you redraw that graph by compressing the scary slope, flattening it out and making the 310 line 0 instead? Yes, yes you can.
3. The word is "Fahrenheit."
4. Climate change, formerly called "global warming," is a massive fraud, perpetrated in the name of *science*. Disgraceful.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:39


Look up atmospheric water vapor concentration. It is approximately 1.5%.
That is 15,000 ppmv, compared to 410 ppmv for CO2, which increases at a paltry 1.3 ppmv annually, from all sources.
The graph is flat.

http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sulaiman
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2466
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: Shah Alam, Malaysia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:50


Think of the Earth's atmospheric CO2 level, or temperature, as being similar to human body temperature,
have you ever seen a graph of human body temperature in Kelvin with Zero as an axis ?




CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
View user's profile View All Posts By User
morganbw
National Hazard
****




Posts: 363
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 06:56


Discussions on climate change are so polarized that they offer no value,
only discord.

It is odd to me that so many things with a scientific base will get ripped by those who prefer not to believe the data.

You do not have to believe in global warming nor do I, however, belief is not enough to overcome whether something is real or not.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:11


Morganbw:
Discussions on climate change are so polarized that they offer no value,
only discord.

It is odd to me that so many things with a scientific base will get ripped by those who prefer not to believe the data.

You do not have to believe in global warming nor do I, however, belief is not enough to overcome whether something is real or not.
-----------------------------

And science is always supposed to be harmonious? Since when? Scientists always agree on both data, and HOW data are interpreted? Since when?

"The data" have been fabricated, skewed, and misinterpreted, for profit and fame. I pointed out a very simple and well-known graph, and how it is fraudulently proffered. That you choose to reject everything I said is your interpretation. I disagree.

It is indeed useful to see a different perspective, as I presented. How many people reading this knew that water vapor is by far THE dominant greenhouse gas? I suggest a small percentage. Now they know.
How many people realize that the Scary Graph shows TOTAL carbon dioxide increase, not just anthropogenic? Human sources account for roughly 4% of carbon dioxide's annual atmospheric increase. 4%.

Facts - scary to the Left.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1745
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:19


Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
Facts - scary to the Left.

And there's the inevitable political bit that always gets these threads trashed. Leave your opinions out of it. Keep this to science and data and it might survive more than a day.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:36


Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
Facts - scary to the Left.

And there's the inevitable political bit that always gets these threads trashed. Leave your opinions out of it. Keep this to science and data and it might survive more than a day.


You only ordered me to keep MY opinion "out of it" because my opinion did not fit with your politics. Others posted their opinions on this thread and you said not a word to them. But on the scientific subject of opinions and academics, this:

A Crisis of Confidence The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California
https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence....

"Political activism" means the left-wing variety, bien sur.
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - The Late Milton Friedman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3877
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:36


Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist  
Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
Facts - scary to the Left.

And there's the inevitable political bit that always gets these threads trashed.

And trashed it should be along with its poster ─ the guy is either a flat-out liar, or he's just another fucking science-averse moron with shitforbrains!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
andy1988
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 69
Registered: 11-2-2018
Location: NW Americus ([i]in re[/i] Amerigo Vespucci)
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:41


Detritus.

I've had the displeasure of meeting a libertarian(?) think tank employee. Naive, fresh out of college, flown in because his ideology aligned with said think tank. Job responsibilities included:
(1) Write "scientific" papers furthering the think tank's agenda, and
(2) Engage and post in social media, news articles in attempts to persuade the public to their way of thinking. Which included the narrative that privatizing government functions such as the EPA was the best way to solve pollution problems (and other rubbish!).

Further, it appears your education was sub-par:
Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  

If you redraw the graph with a zero base in ppmv, it flattens out very considerably. If you redraw the graph with ONLY anthropogenic CO2, it gets almost pool table flat.

I do dislike personal attacks, but I do believe you're being disingenuous.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 07:55


Quote: Originally posted by andy1988  
Detritus.

I've had the displeasure of meeting a libertarian(?) think tank employee. Naive, fresh out of college, flown in because his ideology aligned with said think tank. Job responsibilities included:


Further, it appears your education was sub-par:


I do dislike personal attacks, but I do believe you're being disingenuous.


Yes indeed, you "do dislike personal attacks."
My "education was sub-par" but yours was of course world class.

I believe you're being condescending and arrogant. How unscientific of you.
And on the subject of the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority, which obviously you engage in:

'Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true is really true there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright, uneducated bicycle mechanic, who flew eight years after Lord Kelvin made his infamous remark
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4008
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 08:21


Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
Y
If you redraw the graph with a zero base in ppmv, it flattens out very considerably. If you redraw the graph with ONLY anthropogenic CO2, it gets almost pool table flat.

You must have a really bad pool table

pool.JPG - 23kB
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3877
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 08:30


Hey troll, go peddle your stupidity and bald-faced lies somewhere else ─ we're not the dumbed-down rabble you appear to think we are!!!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Ubya
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 620
Registered: 23-11-2017
Location: Rome-Italy
Member Is Offline

Mood: I'm a maddo scientisto!!!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 08:57


Yes water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, but what counts is the equilibrium of the system, something you are ignoring.
If global warming was all due to water vapour the earth should have been as toasty as venus by now, liquid water has been present on earth for 4 billions years, if the rising of global temperature was because of water vapour, why it is showing it's effects just now?
Earth is a closed system, energy input from the sun and energy irradiated from earth must be the same, otherwise temperatures drop if the earth irradiated more heat than what it recives, or heats up if it absorbs more heat from the sun than it can give off.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, yea you are right, without it earth would be pretty chilly like Mars, thanks to it we can leave home in T-shirts.
Global temperatures are rising, it is a fact, not a theory, not a scam, a fact. Why are they rising could be your answer? You proposed that we have nothing to do with it, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are just 4%, that we can't be the cause, that it' s all a scam. Why are the temperatures rising then?
Plus, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are just 4%", not a valid excuse, that's a 4% that should not be there, it's a cumulative percentage that every year adds to the total.
As you should know, it takes really little force to umbalance a fork balanced on the tip of a glass, this is the same thing.
In the beginning all the greenhouse gasses were enough to keep earth at thermal equilibrium around 13 degrees Celsius, all the factors were at equilibrium, energy input from the sun, reflected energy from the ground, energy absorbed by the atmosphere, the oceans, the ground etc, energy reflected back from greenhouse gases. Now add to the equations humans, taking carbon sources locked out of the system for millions of years, and putting all that carbon (taken out of the system millions of years ago during many millions years) in the atmosphere in the span of 200 years, there's not enough time to fix it in plant matter at the rate we are putting it in the atmosphere, this way it's concentration rises, it's not at equilibrium. As a greenhouse gas it rises global temperatures by trapping reflected heat from the ground, as the temperature rises also the water vapour pressione rises, and as you said it'by itself a greenhouse gas rising global temperatures even more. Due to the rising temperatures the ice caps melt at a faster rate, ice has a high albedo(reflects light a lot), and this helps reflecting incoming solar energy back to space, less ice caps=more heat absorbing surface, heating earth even more. The ocean is the biggest CO2 buffer, it absorbs CO2 and keeps it as HCO3-, usually this gets sedimented to the ocean floor as carbonate, but again, we are putting CO2 faster than the environment can dispose, and the oceans are nearly saturated, making the water acidic and making life harder for water creatures. Clouds are another thing that reflects light from the sun, but hotter it gets lesser are the clouds giving positive feedback to the loop.
So saying that global warming is a hoax because a graph uses different scales or units it's just uneducated.
Just because the curve looks flatter does not mean than it's negligeble





---------------------------------------------------------------------
feel free to correct my grammar, or any mistakes i make
---------------------------------------------------------------------
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 09:49


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by MrWonderful  
Y
If you redraw the graph with a zero base in ppmv, it flattens out very considerably. If you redraw the graph with ONLY anthropogenic CO2, it gets almost pool table flat.

You must have a really bad pool table


The anthropogenic component is 4% of what you posted. So decrease the slope by 96%. Then redraw the coordinates such that the base is 0 and the top of the graph is 15,500 ppmv because water vapor is 15,000 ppmv.

The incredible hostility and vulgarity of some posters here is a violation of rules on any message board. They get by with hatred and ignorance because they parrot the Left-wing, which holds itself up above everyone else.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3877
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 09:57


Why the fuck are you even here, you lying, retarded piece of ordure???

FOAD!!!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Vomaturge
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 160
Registered: 21-1-2018
Member Is Offline

Mood: thermodynamic

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:02


I like to avoid politics in scientific discussion. The people who don't believe in global warming but want to use it to enact social control and rake in personal wealth, and also the people who believe in it but say "you can't impede industry! It's too important to our economy!" Would all be getting what they deserved if the temperature increased by 30% on an absolute scale. I also don't like accusing someone of 'lying' without conclusive evidence that what they are saying is actually false, and that they are intentionally trying to mislead. Being misinformed or having an incorrect theory isn't the same as lying.

But I don't think we need to automatically shut down discussion just because a few participants have politically derived bias.

The graph in the first post does show a very significant increase in CO2 concentration. Sure on an absolute graph it would look a bit less extreme, but a change from 320 to 390, in what is really a short period in earth's history, seems like a dramatic change no matter how you look at it. The level of CO2 is not unprecedented, but it is higher than it has been in human history:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.h...
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1...

More importantly, the OP suggested that this sudden increase in carbon dioxide concentration may mostly come from natural sources, meaning that human activity is not the main cause. There are people who say that all other sources of CO2 emission are too small to have caused the increase but they could be missing a key source. If they did, I wonder what it is? If human activity accounts for 4%, is that 4% the reason for the large increase in CO2 concentration over the last century? Have we disruped an equilibrium? this diagram makes it look as if anthropogenic CO2 is only 3.5% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere yearly, but that without it there would only be 1.7*10^9 tons per year of CO2 added to the atmosphere, compared to 7.2*10^9 with it included. In other words, if the diagram is comprehensive and accurate, human activity is the biggest addition of CO2 which is not cancelled out by other factors. Now the trillion dollar questions are, how accurate is our estimations of carbon uptake and emissions, whether increasing CO2 concentration in the air will increase absorption into water and plants and establish a new equilibrium, and if so what will be the effects of being in an atmosphere with that new, elevated concentration of CO2?

It's hard to be unbiased scientists in a discussion like this, but it's important that we try.

Edit: Also, does anyone know how much increasing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere by 4% (or maybe 10 eventually, as countries develop and population grows) will effect the ultimate concentration? Will increasing air concentration create increasing carbon absorption by plants and water? If not, how come the natural carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are nearly balanced by the absorption of carbon dioxide by natural processes? And that's with 150 Gtons being added into the 750Gton atmospheric reservoir every year! If we start adding 5 to 15 gtons per year, how high will concentrations climb?

[Edited on 3-5-2019 by Vomaturge]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:07


Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  
Yes water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, but what counts is the equilibrium of the system, something you are ignoring.
If global warming was all due to water vapour the earth should have been as toasty as venus by now, liquid water has been present on earth for 4 billions years, if the rising of global temperature was because of water vapour, why it is showing it's effects just now?


Have you any idea how many ice ages there have been, followed by warming periods? Your "just now" comment is ridiculous.


Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  
Earth is a closed system, energy input from the sun and energy irradiated from earth must be the same, otherwise temperatures drop if the earth irradiated more heat than what it recives, or heats up if it absorbs more heat from the sun than it can give off.


If earth were a closed system, it would not be receiving radiation from the sun. Start talking science, please.

Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  

Global temperatures are rising, it is a fact, not a theory, not a scam, a fact. Why are they rising could be your answer? You proposed that we have nothing to do with it, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are just 4%, that we can't be the cause, that it' s all a scam. Why are the temperatures rising then?


If it's all so catastrophic, why do they lie? Why do their models fail year after year after year? Why do they provide dishonest graphs and modify their data if it's all so *scientific*? Research Climategate. Research Mann's lost court battle, where he refused to provide the court his research notes because he lied.


Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  
Plus, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are just 4%", not a valid excuse, that's a 4% that should not be there, it's a cumulative percentage that every year adds to the total.


The Scary Graph shows CO2 from ALL SOURCES, including the 96% naturally sourced. It presumes that we are the cause of the entire skewed curve.
How is it that NOBODY has had the guts to say, "You know, you make a good point. The curve IS skewed." Nobody can dissent from the Leftist orthodoxy even here.

How sad and biased that is. How very unscientific, just like contemporary public education.

Quote: Originally posted by Ubya  
So saying that global warming is a hoax because a graph uses different scales or units it's just uneducated.
Just because the curve looks flatter does not mean than it's negligeble



Your education is what, exactly? State your own credentials since you deign to call me "uneducated." If you decline, then post something enlightening, instead of simply attacking anything I have to say. How about something original from you? Is that possible?


O.M.G. Population explosion.

Just LOOK at it:



View user's profile View All Posts By User
hissingnoise
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3877
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood: Pulverulescent!

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:16


Quote: Originally posted by Vomaturge  
I also don't like accusing someone of 'lying' without conclusive evidence that what they are saying is actually false, and that they are intentionally trying to mislead. Being misinformed or having an incorrect theory isn't the same as lying.

To treat these scum with kid-gloves is to appease rabid neo-nazis!

View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrWonderful
Banned for trolling
*




Posts: 25
Registered: 3-5-2019
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:25


Quote: Originally posted by Vomaturge  
I like to avoid politics in scientific discussion. The people who don't believe in global warming but want to use it to enact social control and rake in personal wealth, and also the people who believe in it but say "you can't impede industry!

But I don't think we need to automatically shut down discussion just because a few participants have politically derived bias.



"You can't impede science and research!" Those screams are quite acceptable to you. Moreover, while the Left beats "big oil" mercilessly, the Left continues to:
1. Drive to Earth Day festivities, burning millions of gallons of *toxic* gasoline in the process,
2. Drive to work and to take kids to school and pick them up,
3. Drive to their yachts and private jets after the fashion of Al Gore and Sir Richard Branson and Hollywood Ignorati and bigwigs everywhere,
4. Take vacations all over the world, as advertised by National Geographic Society and Sierra Club who sponsor and promote them and profit enormously therefrom.

As to "derived bias", this:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate...

View user's profile View All Posts By User
Sulaiman
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2466
Registered: 8-2-2015
Location: Shah Alam, Malaysia
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:33


How does population rise linearly by ONE ?



CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Vomaturge
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 160
Registered: 21-1-2018
Member Is Offline

Mood: thermodynamic

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:35


@hissingnoise the OP titled the thread "lying with science", basically calling anyone who suggests that human activity has increased CO2 concentration a liar. I'm telling him that even if he's right (which he isn't necessarily) about the science, he shouldn't jump to accusing climate change studies of lying.

Incidentally, how does denying climate change make someone a "Nazi?" I don't want this thread going to detritus, due to baseless name-calling.

We have a mystery, let's focus on it: without anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the amount of CO2 emitted into the air is nearly equal to the amount taken out of the air. The only increases which can happen are over many millennia. But burn some fuels and increase the emissions by only 3.5%, and the concentration keeps going up in a way it wouldn't otherwise. It increases by a percent of its initial concentration every few years. Now. So what is the relationship between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and the rate of absorption into biomass and water? I guess it is nonlinear, because otherwise we would have increased the atmospheric concentration by 3.5% or 10 ppm, roughly.

Edited because my keyboard went haywire. Also, when I condemned people for saying "you can't impede industry!" I was talking about people who think climate change is real, but say we are wrong to take action against it. Likewise, people who don't believe in it but are using it as an excuse for political changes are also part of the problem. It is these people who keep us from getting to the bottom of whether there is really a problem at all, and keep us from having a polite unbiased conversation (sans "Nazi,""FOAD","Retarded" "liar" And "facts are scary for the left"). We need an honest discussion or we will either A. Alter our whole planet for the worst or B. Have unnecessary political controls placed on our whole population.

[Edited on 3-5-2019 by Vomaturge]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
elementcollector1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2616
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline

Mood: Molten

[*] posted on 3-5-2019 at 10:43


Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman  
How does population rise linearly by ONE ?


Genetic cloning, maybe? It's too early in the morning for me to worry about these kinds of things.

With regards to the topic as a whole, even if the poster were completely right (they're not, having provided no sources for 'anthropogenic' contributions that I can see), and even if their debate points were solid (they're not, same as previous), this thread would still go nowhere.

It's an argument in bad faith: The OP is not going to change their mind, and this topic was not posted to start any kind of 'discussion' - rather, it's a soapbox. I'm reporting this for the usual politics violation... among other things.




Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Ge
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  

  Go To Top