Hijacked thread about global warming theories

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

If what someone says misleads others to cause harm can saying it become wrong? Can the speaker be held accountable for their words? Should they?

No. In a case involving Fox News and two of their reporters, the courts allowed that Fox News had the right to to say and broadcast whatever they want*:

Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_co...orm_public

* For local Puna conspiracy theorists, the report in question invloved Monsanto

[terracore]

I started having doubts about climate change when this happened:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...e-400-ppm/

And this is why- They chose a measurement site on a volcano that is venting CO2, which is also only a few miles away from Kilauea- maybe the largest single most-measured natural co2 producer in the world, and the measurement was taken at the same time the trade winds (and all winds actually) had completely died. I drove the saddle that day and the vog was so thick you could see and taste it. A person I worked with told me it was the worst vog she had seen in 31 years. Not surprisingly, when the winds picked up, the co2 measurements went down.

Look at this quote:

"Mauna Loa is higher because most of the fossil fuel CO2 is emitted in the Northern Hemisphere," says NOAA scientist Pieter Tans. It takes about a year, he says, for northern pollution to spread through the Southern Hemisphere.

MAUNA LOA IS HIGHER BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A VOLCANIC CHAIN THAT VENTS COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF CO2 is what I thought, (thinking in all caps).

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second most abundant constituent in Kilauea emissions. Current CO2 emission rates are about 10,000 tonnes/day." ( http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arch...06_05.html )

I don't think that figure is accurate (seems high), however putting a CO2 detector on a volcano venting CO2 next to a bigger CO2 venting volcano and then waiting for the winds to completely die to publish the reading you've been looking for is not science.

So ever since this incident, which was personal to me because I drove through and choked on the horrible haze that caused these scam readings, right by the volcano they were obtained on, I call shenanigans.

I don't have any doubt that humans can effect the climate. But why are they trying so hard to manipulate the data? Why isn't the CO2 measuring station on Mauna Kea, not much further, but yes further from the naturally venting CO2? Why weren't the trade winds (or lack thereof) or the densest vog I've ever seen on saddle taken into consideration before publishing this "science"?

ETA: grammar

[leilanidude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by terracore

I started having doubts about climate change when this happened:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...e-400-ppm/

And this is why- They chose a measurement site on a volcano that is venting CO2, which is also only a few miles away from Kilauea- maybe the largest single most-measured natural co2 producer in the world, and the measurement was taken at the same time the trade winds (and all winds actually) had completely died. I drove the saddle that day and the vog was so thick you could see and taste it. A person I worked with told me it was the worst vog she had seen in 31 years. Not surprisingly, when the winds picked up, the co2 measurements went down.

Look at this quote:

"Mauna Loa is higher because most of the fossil fuel CO2 is emitted in the Northern Hemisphere," says NOAA scientist Pieter Tans. It takes about a year, he says, for northern pollution to spread through the Southern Hemisphere.

MAUNA LOA IS HIGHER BECAUSE IT'S PART OF A VOLCANIC CHAIN THAT VENTS COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF CO2 is what I thought, (thinking in all caps).

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second most abundant constituent in Kilauea emissions. Current CO2 emission rates are about 10,000 tonnes/day." ( http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/arch...06_05.html )

I don't think that figure is accurate (seems high), however putting a CO2 detector on a volcano venting CO2 next to a bigger CO2 venting volcano and then waiting for the winds to completely die to publish the reading you've been looking for is not science.

So ever since this incident, which was personal to me because I drove through and choked on the horrible haze that caused these scam readings, right by the volcano they were obtained on, I call shenanigans.

I don't have any doubt that humans can effect the climate. But why are they trying so hard to manipulate the data? Why isn't the CO2 measuring statement on Mauna Kea, not much further, but yes further from the naturally venting CO2? Why weren't the trade winds (or lack thereof) or the densest vog I've ever seen on saddle taken into consideration before publishing this "science"?

---

Exactly.

Plus, there are a lot of volcanoes that have been erupting in the last 30 years or so. Too many people are trying to make money off of man-made climate change, Al Gore having been the biggest.

[terracore]

You are right, all CO2 sinks, therefore there shouldn't be any in our atmosphere to cause climate change.

That looks like a "stock" photograph, those are clouds, and not vog.

I never stated I was a scientist or interpreting data, I was just recounting my experiences. And if you research the data, you will see that when the trades resumed the CO2 levels went down. Of course that could just be a coincidence.

[TomK]

Scale height of CO2 in the atmosphere is a little over 5-km, over 17,000 feet. This is well above the monitoring station on Mauna loa. VOG very rarely gets above 3-km, or 10,000 feet. The two are not directly related.