- 12-04-2009, 01:23 PM
Of course they could get their predictions wrong, but climate scientists are the people best placed to make these predictions as they and assess the risk as they , well, study climate science for a living. The vast majority of them have predicted that it is likely there will be big problems for us as a result of our CO2 emissions.
So who are “most sceptics” are they fully qualified climate scientists working in their field? What is the proportion of climate scientists who believe AGW is not likely to be a big problem and what is the proportion who dont ? I would like you to try and answer this question honestly .
If you find “the vast majority “ of experts who actually do know what they are talking about agree AGW is a big problem that needs to be addressed why you think that you should ignore their advice for the advice of a very small handful of scientists who disagree ? Are you really saying that you are qualified to criticise the scientific method used in detailed climate research and of so what are your qualifications ?
My qualifications are that, unlike you, I can smell a line of **** when I come across it.
The Earths long term atmosphere has never been influenced by humans burning billions of tons of CO2 back into the atmopshere before .
What they do say is for millions of years CO2 has been taken out of the atmosphere by plants. When these plants and huge forests died they eventually formed coal and oil. All this CO2 is now being being pumped back into the atmosphere (by burning the fossil fuels) in a very short time reverting CO2 levels to back before many of our ecosystems evolved which is obviously dangerous .
No this is not the charge. The charge is that pumping out billions of CO2 into the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm to a degree that could threaten the stability of our society.
No climate scientist has ever claimed that the Earths climate was marvellously stable until we started pumping CO2 into it. Quite the reverse actually.
there is also some evidence that sunspots contribute to some of our present warming but that they cannot account for ALL the warming) we can reduce the effects by capping emissions.
I cant really see how that is relevant but our climate when looked at in the long term is definitely not stable and is a constant state of flux.
1.Since the industrial revolution the planet has already warmed sufficiently for the icecaps to recede exposing more dark soil (ice is white and reflects heat darker colours absorb heat). Thus increased darker ground retains more heat , leading to more ice melting etc etc an unstable and unpleasant positive feedback cycle.
2.Melting ice due to aforementioned warming in point one causes arctic tundra to be exposed . Methane stored in the arctic tundra is now bubbling to the surface and being released into the atmosphere – methane retains heat much more than CO2. About 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, a series of methane burps similar to this came close to wiping out all life on Earth.
Or we can learn more about the climate and perhaps to a degree control it by introducing negative feedbacks of our own. We can't do the latter however if everyone but Al Gore is reduced to subsistence levels of living while he and his ilk get richer and fatter taking the results of our hard work and using it to buy and sell carbon offsets from each other. Stone age societies don't deal with complex problems very well. We can't even do what you want and 'develop' the alternatives without using oil. How the **** are we supposed to do it? With what capacity, what income, what resources? It always takes greater than one unit of low grade energy to produce one equivalent unit of high grade, economically desirable and usable energy. So that means no matter what fossil fuels will be a part of our lives for a long, long, long time. It is upon the productive capacity we get as a result of using them that we can build nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. What you are proposing is to wipe out and/or severely limit the use of the higher order energy commodities that are necessary to develop the ones further down the structure of production for mass use as the less desirable ones move further and further up the structure of production. Once more, great plan. Can't wait to see how it works out for everyone.
3.As the atmosphere heats the oceans heat. The oceans can hold less CO2 the warmer they get. The more CO2 and other greenhouse gases released form the oceans the warmer it get setc etc another positive feedback situation.Originally Posted by Tom Segalstad, Geology Professor
Whether the original warming is human generated or not is irrelevant – the point is we should do as much as we can not to excaberate the situation by using dirty fuel sources that pump greenhouse gases into the air. If you want an example of a long term positive feedback system in which CO2 levels spiralled out of control and then created a stable , burning hot atmosphere – look at venus.
Although sunspots may be contributing to our present warming the fact the fact that temperatures have risen on an almost identical trajectory with CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution is a fact Id also like you to explain .
Who are GISS ? Until you actually come up with some reasonable arguments and facts for me to change my mind why should I ignore the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists and instead adopt yours ?
I just think its ridiculous that so many people who are not climate scientists feel they are qualified to dispute what the the vast majority of climate scientists.
You can huff and puff as much as you like but at the end of the day I will trust what the majority of experts say over you or a handful of scientists say any day of the week. If the vast majority of scientists suddenly said – look we got it wrong everything will be OK AGW is nothing to worry about then I would listen to them .
- 12-05-2009, 12:56 AM
Well it snowed in Houston today - and south Looziana.
We got nothing here in the nation's capital.
Global warming FTW.
- 12-05-2009, 01:31 AM
The historic fluctuations and historically warmer periods are well acknowledged.
For example, the hockey stick issue you rant about was largely about historic patterns of fluctuations and whether or not current patterns are consistent with those.
Current patterns are not consistent with these past patterns based not only on Mann and Jones's research but also of many others. McIntyre argued that the statistical characterization of those historic periods was inappropriate.
However even if you use exactly McIntyre's methods (which have been criticized heavily in the peer-review literature, most people seem to use an intermediate approach between that of Mann in 1998 and McIntyre) but include data up until today, the pattern reported by Mann shows up. McIntyre has continued to argue against such things but basically has had to reject the argument he originally made against Mann in doing so. Who is massaging results again?
Regarding dissenting researchers in the field of climatology, is Mcyintre (can never remember how to spell his name) all you're coming up with?
I can think of a couple of others off the top of my head. Here's an idea, summarize McIntyre's position and the evidence for it and the arguments against it try and do so dispassionately.
What is funny about focusing on McIntyre and Mann though is that arguments about proxy data aren't actually needed or able to refute current patterns; isotope signatures pretty much definitively demonstrate the current status. Here are things we know definitively: increased atmospheric CO2 leads to warming (you agree on this one, many so-called skeptics don't); CO2 levels are much, much higher today than during much of human history; the increase of atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely composed of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels (this is the only explanation available for isotope patterns).
As for money corrupting, there is a hell of a lot on one side and much, much less on the other. Those Exxon bribes are far more than half of a typical graduate student's yearly salary and most assistant professors start out making less than 65k a year. Of course money isn't the only reason someone might be less than completely honest.
You are partially right about consensus not equaling scientific evidence. However, in this case the consensus mirrors the weight of evidence which despite Popper's unwarranted status today is a valid argument. Heck, weight of evidence is what led to the eventual widespread acknowledgment of plate tectonics. (skeptics like to point to tectonics as evidence against arguments about consensus as well but they typically fail to recognize that it was mostly just American geologists that rejected Wegner's argument and evidence, in part because of the philosophical/methodological influence of Chamberlin)
12-07-2009, 06:14 AM
This demonstrates your ignorance. The dispute between Mann et al. and McIntyre has to do with how to statistically deal with historical climatic variation.Bull****. The entire argument of Mann et al is that the climate was stable for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and only just recently with our fossil fuel burning went up anomalously. That's the whole ****ing point of the graph: a long period of little to no change followed by a huge increase in temperatures.
12-07-2009, 08:09 AM
The ony thing that's clear from your posts is that you have barely even read the material of the people with whom you supposedly agree. I'm not wasting my time with your bull****. Learn something and stop parroting the BS of others and maybe you'll be worth responding to. Or, better yet, try selling your **** on one of those horrible 'skeptic' sites and see how quickly they turn your claims to crap.
12-09-2009, 09:15 AM
Find me one government grant on this planet that openly says " I will give you a grant if you write a paper that proves that global warming is caused by people". Although I am not a climate scientist I have been following the story of global warming for about twenty years - long before it became the great controversy it is now and nobody paid any mind to their results until recently - certainly 20 years ago there was no evil government conspiracy to slant their results in a certain direction as part of nefarious plot to raise taxes. As they reported results that showed a potential threat no doubt governments offered funds to investigate that threat further to see how serious it was - but those grants were not dependant on results.Of course, when Exxon Mobile gives money to people it's bribes. When politicians do it, it's grants. Hundreds of billions of dollars has no corrupting influence of any kind on any of the proponents, of course those oil executives are immortal and impervious to UV rays and excessive heat, and they don't have any kids of their own or any reason at all to want to do anything but murder the whole planet.
Yes I believe that the CEOs of big oil companies are short sighted enough to sabotage their own grandchildrens future - unfortunately history is repleat with examples of the leaders of humanity not doing what benefits their offspring for their own short term wealth, security, comfort and prestige.
I dont know a hell of lot of climate scientists with a collection of rare sports cars so to compare the economic incentives of both sides of the debate is ludicrous.
I am not making any such claim - I am merely pointing out that the most powerful industry on the planet (oil) stands to lose a lot more financially than climate scientists should they lose this debate, plus they have a lot more resources at their disposal than the average industry when it comes to distorting the truth. Scientists generally get funded regardless of the results of their research.Money currupts period. If it corrupts the skeptics, it corrupts the proponents too. You don't get to level a criticism at one side and then claim your side is immune to the very same human trait.
Governments have not jumped at the vote losing opportunity to raise taxes in order to prevent climate disaster - in fact theyve been dragging their feet about it for years . Suggesting that govt are making this up to scare the public and have an ideal reason to raise taxes is definitely in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theories.
You might just as well say that the arguments that tobacco is bad for your health is a conspiracy by Nicorette patches to make more money. It doesnt invalidate the scientific research that links cancer to tobacco.However Al Gore and many governments of the world and their leeches stand to gain billions if not trillions with the enactment of cap and trade and other such legislation.
Creationists say exactly the same thing. Just because somebody disagrees with the majority does not automatically make them correct. Not every dissenter is an Einstein.I don't know and I don't give a ****, because unlike the ignorant of which you are a part I know that consensus on any level is not now nor has it ever been a criterion to judge science by.
The controversial data of a minuscule amount of climate scientists does not undermine the whole global body of climate science.Unfortuntately for you and lucky for me, the data and methods are exactly what's in dispute here, and apparently the results are so finicky that unless you let the 'scientists' massage that data and those methods just right, you'll never duplicate their results.
Climate data comes from thousands of sources not to mention corroborating evidence from other diciplines such as geology and Earth scientists.
Although current climate knowledge may be proved wrong in future - we have to make a decision now. Therefore the only logical thing to do is do so in accordance with the majorities view - ie the consensus.
Large sums of money are at stake . When other theories that have achieved consensus in science there hasnt been a multi billion dollar industry (oil) trying to disprove the research with fake petitions with scientists who didnt even know their names were on it being presented to congress, $10,000 being offered to people etc etc
I would like to add , thank god someone has the balls to stand up to the oil industry that is using every dirty trick in the book to undermine the emissions capping process.Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was flat.
Would you take the opinion of a climate scientist criticising quantum entanglement seriously ?I'm looking for the rule in the Science Rule Book that says you get to pick and choose your own critics. Can't find it.
I assume you are taking about the idea that land based methods of temperature which have shown a rise in temperature since 1880 are unreliable - whilst it may be very difficult to determine an accurate global average temperature with such methods, the changes in temperature of the different measuring stations are are still possible to use and still exhibit a coherent rise in temperatures globally . Ie they can calcualte the rate at which they rise but not the true average surface temperature of the planet.Watt is a meteorologist etc etc .
Besides there measuring stations are not the only method of showing a rise in temperature. The fact that greenlands icecaps are melting faster than ever and that polar bears that evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago (long before the MWP) are endangered due to ice melt is surely evidence enough.
The icecaps that are melting in Greenland now are at least 100,000 years old to millions of years old. They are not the same icecaps that had melted when Eric the Red settled vineland which were melts that were due to the wobble (the viking colony in Greenland only constitured two very small towns incidently that were not located on these ancient icecaps) . There is now more land available in Greenland than in Eric the reds time.
There are literally thousands of peer reviewed climate papers by thousands of different people.the same group of ten ****ing people.
In the opinion of many even taking account of the changes to infrastructure necessary its still better than risking global climate disaster. Besides new jobs will be created by investment in renewables.For one so up on science and logic you do seem to commit a whole ****load of fallacies. Not only are your two 'options' not the only ones, you conveniently ignore the massive costs associated with each.
Sweden gets 40 percent of its energy from renewables, Spain already provides more than a third of its energy from renewable resources , Germany is doing well and there are many more examples that show renewable energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuels .'Cleaner' fuels don't just drop out of your a@#, they have to be developed. And the bottom line of the whole issue is no matter whether their research is sound, their economic knowledge is nonexistent.
In a relatively short time huge amounts of energy have been generated by renewables. With government support globally these successes will be greatly amplified. We have to wean ourselves of finite carbon fuels eventually anyway so why not do it now and avoid the possibility of AGW ?
Which would be what exactly ?So I]ll tell you what,, once those pricks start respecting my science,
In what way are you qualified to speak on the subject of renewable energies ? You dont by any chance work for the fossil fuel industry do you ?I am definitely qualified to speak to their proposed 'solutions', and there's not a one of them that isn't completely and totally ****ed.
Im all ears as to how renewable energy solutions that are already up and running in many countries are useless.
12-09-2009, 09:26 AM
It is both a driver and a result of warming. There are many studies which show CO2 is capable of trapping infrared radiation in the earths atmosphere and prolonging warming periods. Besides there are basic experiments that show that CO2 traps infrared energy beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is just completely insane to think it will have no effect at all global temperatures at all. You could make an argument that its effects will not be a great as some people say - you may even be right - but to describe CO2 as merely a feedback effect and something that makes not contribution to warming when its infrared trapping ability is so well known is misleading. The point still remains then : even if we are experiencing warming from natuiral sources anyway then why amplify it to any degree with greenhouse gases whern we have alternatives available especially when fossil fuels are a finite resource we need to find an alternative to anyway . Why take the risk ?Wrong again. There's a difference between being the cause of the warming and contributing to the warming. Ya see genius, as the world warms the oceans lose the ability to keep gas in solution, and it gets released. Therefore it's more than possible that CO2 is not the DRIVER of warming but merely one feedback mechanism among many no matter its source.
The economic reasons you cite are not sufficient in the view of many to risk - and again you dont take acount of new jobs created by renewables.
This is I am afraid completely incorrect. . Thousands of researchers contribute to their report and the conclusions of their reports are supported by nearly every single major climatic body on the planet.Wrong again. The IPCC, which is in reality a handful of people not "thousands of scientists," even admit this in their own graphs.
The IPCC receives contributions from thousands of people worldwide.
You might actually have an argument if it wasnt for the fact that we are cutting all the trees down . The huge scale of tropical deforestation is another major contributing factor to global warming. And yes there is a shortage of wildlife and plantlife - in fact one third of the world wildlife is endangered due to habitat loss and other human impact and we are headed for another great exctinction event - one caused entirely by us.And they neglect studies which show in response to CO2 rising plant life explodes to suck in more. They deny it specifically because some of the trees they use to prove temperatures are so hot now are sensitive to CO2 fertilization. ....... warmer temperatures are good for plant life. There's no shortage of life at the equator, plant or animal.
Also there are other factors to consider. Deciduous and evergreen fForests can move at a rate of 65 miles per century. The potential warming that we are looking at may mean that their optimum climatic zones move at a rate of 200 miles per century - meaning many species of plant will simply not be able to move climate zone fast enough and die out or be greatly reduced in number . Increased carbon dioxide in the airand water is also bad for corals and marine life and with large areas of the oceans already "dead zones" it is a big assumption to think that life will easily adapt let alone thrive and absorb all the excess co2.
Well most climate scientists are quite happy to point out that the climate changes in the Earth are caused by many things (such as the wobble in the Earths axis that is causing our present cycle of iceage/warming) . They merely are merely pointing out that the current rate of warming cannot be explained by natural sources alone. In addition to these natural cycles pumping billions of tons of a gas which has known infrared trapping properties into the atmosphere may have unpredicatable results and is generally not a good idea.Bull****. The entire argument of Mann et al is that the climate was stable for THOUSANDS OF YEARS and only just recently with our fossil fuel burning went up anomalously. That's the whole ****ing point of the many available graphs: a long period of little to no change followed by a huge increase in temperatures.
Some of them ,a tiny percentage of those working in the field , are alleged to have falsified data - this is not sufficient to undermine the findings of an entire multidiciplinary effort to understand the climate.those very same scientists admit in private their models are coming up seriously short. Not what they say to the public or put in reports of course, only to each other.
Venus freezes ? Neptune boils ? Pray tell.....Every other planetary body we know has temperature swings from deep freezes to boiling metal levels, sometimes within the same 'day'. That's not stability.
Well the planet was a burning ball of fire when it started - hey that means its natural and we can nuke the whole world and blame it on natural warming processes becuase its been this hot before !Ours on the other hand is stable. Our Earth's temperature stays remarkably stable toward the low end of what's necessary to sustain life with occassional warming interludes.
Have you been to China ? You can hardly breathe - some times smog stretches for hundreds of miles around the cities. I really dont think discouraging the use of fossil fuels is a bad idea no matter what your view of AGW.Our response should be to... destroy our ability to create and produce any solutions of significance by artificially capping our energy usage.
There is a big debate about whjether renewable energies can meet our energy demands. As I have already pointed out some countries produce nearly half their energy supply from them already . I dislike it for various reasons but you seem to be avoiding mentioning nuclear fission - there is no doubt it could meet our energy demands.So that means no matter what fossil fuels will be a part of our lives for a long, long, long time. It is upon the productive capacity we get as a result of using them that we can build nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, etc. What you are proposing is to wipe out and/or severely limit the use of the higher order energy commodities that are necessary to develop the ones further down the structure of production for mass use as the less desirable ones move further and further up the structure of production. Once more, great plan. Can't wait to see how it works out for everyone.
Now that is a logical fallacy. Yes according to Henrys law the natural co2 ratio between ocean and air should be 50:1 (assuming constant temperature) if nature is left to take its course . But say we artificially pump 1 million tons of co2 into the air (a tiny amount) - the ocean doesnt just magically produce 50 million tons of carbon dioxide to match it - where would this come from ? The answer is that the balance is broken and the ratio is no longer 50:1.Originally Posted by Tom Segalstad, Geology Professor
CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.
Its not the overwhelming driver - its an influencing factor. A more important driver could be the ocean currents that bring warm water from the pacific to the Arctic or the Antarctic gyre, or the tilt of the Earths orbit, or solar flares or any number of other things. That doent mean that CO2 has no effect though.Also, the ocean like the land is likely to increase biologic activity with warming which increases its storage capacity, which puts this 'tipping point' even further out of reach. Also, there have been times in the Earth's history with massive CO2 concentrations and incredibly cold conditions. If CO2 is the overwhelming driver of climate change claimed, this should not be possible.
The medievil warming period is viewed as local to the North atlantic. Current ice age/warming cycles are believed to be generated by the tilt in the Earths rotation. The graphs do not just record temperatures form the North Atlantic but many sources of data over the whole world which is why a localised variation would not occur in their graphs. Objections to the medieval warming period being only local have been rebuiffed by many different climate scientists time and time again. Again how do you explain the melting of ice caps that are millions of years old ?That's one of the problems with the data. One of the other problems is that even after the hockey team massages the data so it appears there is such a correlation, correlation is not causation. Your team of qualified 'scientists' also has the tendency to cut temperature graphs off right at the end of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age depending on the scale they're dealing with, giving an expected natural temperature recovery the look of being an unprecedented increase, which is their way of heading off the question of what caused all that similar and even hotter warming in the past when there were no CO2 emissions of note other than natural sources.
I would normally just refer to them as NASA.You're trying to debate this issue and you don't even ****ing know the Space Institute, much less their role in it? Areyou typing from under a ****ing rock right now? GISS = Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Nasa, Gavin ****'s and Jim Hansen's home, the runners of the Real Climate site. Gee, you'd think someone as knowledgable as you on this subject would know who produced what's supposed to be the second most reliable temperature reconstruction for the planet...
You see unlike most people climate change is an issue I have taken interest in for quite a while.
In fact when I started reading about global warming in magazines like the New Scientist I dont think anyone I knew had the internet.
My sources have been books, magazines and my foundation course in Enviromental science.
Those who have recently become interested in global warming tend to get all there information online. Specifically “wotts up wid dat” or for the opposition “real climate” both of which I have only relatively discovered and both of which exagerate the importance of certain people and organisations within climate science simply because they are more vocal online or based in America.
Whilst NASA is obviously importanty there are many many institutes that research climate science most of which you havent heard of because they dont run controversial websites such as these :
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
They al support the IPCC reports - are we to believe they are all corrupt ?
Einstein want offered $10000 to write a specifically biased report and he changed things within his own discipline. Just because someone is in disagreement with consensus doesnt mean they are right. Otherwise we should just automatically assume that the Earth is only 10,000 old.I know a patent clerk who disputed newtonian physics. What a presumptuous princess he must have been.
I am aware of your bias and of my own and have taken your arguments in consideration – but so far I have read nothing to convince me that every major climate science body in the world is incorrect – or worse corrupt.
Data aside the observational evidence alone that the planet is warming is overwhelming. Arguments that co2 does not play a significant role in this are not sufficiently convincing either to take the risk of not capping emmisions .
12-09-2009, 10:14 AM
They're subsidized, jack ass. Which means without the subsidy they would have been taken up a lot less. Plus it would have been much simpler, more cost effective, and more economically sound to merely stop subsidizing the safe delivery of oil so the price of oil and gas represented the true costs associated with it, in which case alternative sources would have been more cost effective anyway. Plus the subsidy introduces distortions which means people are more likely to take them up in unsustainable ways, and those people will get a nice hard **** up their ass the second the subsidy ends.Im all ears as to how renewable energy solutions that are already up and running in many countries are useless.
Do you really want to get into an economics debate with me? Or worded another way, do you really want a red ass?
12-10-2009, 07:50 AM
It's not fake. We just came out of an ice age, so we have warmed. And our emissions will have an effect on the climate. The question is what will that effect be, how sensitive is the climate and thus how large will our effect be, and if needed what's the most cost effective way to counteract the effect.
Unfortunately for Luther and other alarmists with the IPCC **** lodged up their ass, the effect looks to be minor. And funny. Because when coming out of a little ice age, and when your precious models can't find a reason for it, warming of a few tenths of a degree must be man made. But cooling, as we're experiencing now, is natural variability. There are so many contradictions and double standards necessary to adopt an alarmist view of climate change that it's ridiculous even the most dense of people are worried.
And funnily enough, no public worry was expressed over the current cooling trend until Trenberth's email came out saying it was a travesty they couldn't account for it. Now the cooling that wasn't happening according to the alarmists is happening but is due to natural variability, and oh how convenient with the timing, here's a nice NOAA study that 'proves' it, probably after a few trillion manual adjustments.
12-10-2009, 08:17 AM
This is priceless...
From the Saint Petersburg Times, 1974...
"There are unmistakable signs that the Earth is getting colder."
"Snowbanks today cover parts of Baffin Island that had been seasonably free of snow for 30 years."
"In England, the average growing season now is two week shorter than it was before 1950."
"Pack ice around Iceland has become a serious hindrance to navigations. The per-acre hay yield has dropped 25 per cent."
This one is especially rich...
"Some glaciers now are steadily advancing, those in the Italian Alps for the first time in 50 years."
"In North America, the warmth-loving armadillo had been ranging as far north as Nebraska, now is retreating southward."
"Weather experts believe that the first half of the 20th Century was blessed with unusually mild weather, and that the global climate has begun returning to a harshers - but more normal - state.
"For the long run, there is mounting evidence of a worldwide cooling trend. The average temperature of the world as a whole has dropped by one-third to one-half a degree Centigrade in the last 30 years."
"'The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began,' says Professor Hubert H. Lamb of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain."
There's plenty more in that article. What a ****ing lark.
12-10-2009, 08:25 AM
Oh, and another nice one. Gavin **** of GISS fame was on CNN recently and admitted that there were huge uncertainties in understanding the climate system. Which raises the question of how you can be certain of the results of actions taken in a system you admit you don't ****ing understand...
12-11-2009, 10:59 AM
It's all based on fa lawed understanding of how it works. Being right or wrong is pretty much a crap shoot.
12-11-2009, 11:34 AM
12-11-2009, 11:53 AM
a) man-made causes are a HUGE cause, not just a minor contributing factor
b) the rest of the world will be held to the same crippling nrules
c) the effect of above crippling rules will make more than a cumdrips difference in the effect.
We are realistically talking about MILLIONS of people shoved under the wheels and into poverty...oh wait, let me guess - expand the welfare state!
Will there be new jobs created? Sure. Will EVERYTHING under the sun suddenly cost 2-3 times the amount? better believe it. Will our incomes suddenly triple to allow us to remain at the same standard? Sure...and we all get a free brooklyn bridge.
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
12-11-2009, 12:01 PM
My opinion on this is from a different perspective. I do believe that local weather can be affected by pollutants and should have local policies in effect to lower health issues.
However, I don't believe it happens on the scale that they say it does or requires the immediate, unproven methods to combat a situation that isn't even solid enough to last a decade without a change in beliefs.
12-11-2009, 01:02 PM
12-11-2009, 05:21 PM
12-13-2009, 01:36 AM
I can honestly say that I would rather barbeque and eat my own limbs.
Unfortunately for you and other alarmists with the IPCC **** lodged up their a##, the effect looks to be minor.
Actually it was a panel of scientists commisioned by congress that examined the hockey stick graph.
I could say theres been a warming trend because the last five hours since I got out of bed have been progressively hotter. The fact of the matter is that 12 of the last fifteen years have been the hottest since records began and 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record. Just because these years havent been as hot as 1998 or 2005 does not mean there is a "cooling trend "But cooling, as we're experiencing now, is natural variability....... the current cooling trend
Staticians were presented with gloabl temperature data without knowing what the data represented. They said the data indicated a clear rise.
It is possible that England will get a lot colder . England is kept artificially warm by the gulf stream which is like a conveyor belt relies on a cool less saline artcic ocean to keep moving .In England, the average growing season now is two week shorter than it was before 1950
If there was no gulf stream bringing warmer saltier waters from the south England would have the same temperature as places in Canada of a similar lattitude. So ironically if the world warms enough to stop the gulf stream then England will get colder . Again local variations are not relevant to global events.
Again its not that simple - gloabl temperature changes have to be examined from measuring stations all over the world not just one or two places. Some places may get colder .Snowbanks today cover parts of Baffin Island that had been seasonably free of snow for 30 years.
One side effect pf global warming is that more water will evapourate which will mean more snow in someplaces so glaciers etc will appear to increase - for a while anyway. However most glaciers in the world are retreating - a lot.
Again - the gulf stream drops just north of Iceland and again regional differences are not indicative of global temperatures.Pack ice around Iceland has become a serious hindrance to navigations. The per-acre hay yield has dropped 25 per cent
Some glaciers now are steadily advancing, those in the Italian Alps for the first time in 50 years."
Some - ie four - the other two hundred are retreating kilometres.
Who died 13 years agoProfessor Hubert H. Lamb of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain
Understanding has moved on a bit - not to mention the hottest decade on record has occurred.
Its called being honest about the limits of your knowledge rather than screaming at anyone who dares to disagree with you and pretending to know what you are talking about to save face.Oh, and another nice one. Gavin **** of GISS fame was on CNN recently and admitted that there were huge uncertainties in understanding the climate system
Nobody is saying they are certain except for people who support their side of the argument like it was their local football in arguments online .Which raises the question of how you can be certain of the results of actions taken in a system you admit you don't ****ing understand...
Scientists are however saying they are 90 percent sure and they are the best weve got.
Pyschologists also admit they dont really understand the human mind very well - but they are still the best weve got if in terms of mental health.
12-13-2009, 02:49 PM
My experience is that people have little idea how the industry works. Lots of antonyms, homonyms, and myth.
12-13-2009, 04:18 PM
I do try to stay away from the politics section of this forum because in my experience politics is a divider of those who agree on other things but I'll just throw this in there.
The net yearly carbon footprint for the industrialized world is 30bil tons/year (cap and trade doesn't change that, just compounds the issue with a fed sponsored derivatives market but that's beside the point) 30bil tons = 2 parts per million of atmospheric gas so 15bill tons = 1ppm. At that rate the UN's council on climate change says that if we do nothing to "stem the tide" in the next 100 years we will increase atmospheric CO2 levels to 468ppm. 468ppm = 7.02 tril tons of CO2 they say we will emit in the next 100 years. The UN Council also says that 7 tril tons of CO2 will cause 7 degrees F of warming in that same 100 year period. Simply put (1 trillion tons of CO2 = 1 degree F) according to the UN. So in order to stall 1 degree of warmth 100 years from now we would have to take steps to emit 1 tril tons less CO2. If the ENTIRE WORLD (including China Russia Mexico Brazil and India 5 of the top 6 CO2 emitters) at our current rate of 30bil tons a year were to go back to the stone age and have 0 industry and 0 CO2 emission. How long would we have to continue that policy before we saved 1 trillion tons of CO2?
answer: 33 years 4 months.
Its a contrived emergency to create a new bubble. Carbon Credits the stock market for the next 100 years.
BTW who thinks China gives a rats ass lol
Your fastest weight is your best weight
12-14-2009, 09:10 AM
You just described the last 15-20 years of climate 'science' with this phrase.screaming at anyone who dares to disagree with you and pretending to know what you are talking about to save face.
Which scientists? Oh, yeah, the ones who through their emails inadvertently confessed to rigging the peer review process, withholding data, deleting data, etc. Pardon my French, but I couldn't give a **** less about that those lying ****s are sure of. After ten years of dealing with their stonewalling and dennigration of anyone who dared question their precious work, they can go **** themselves at this point.Scientists are however saying they are 90 percent sure and they are the best weve got.
12-16-2009, 11:42 AM
Just like everything else politics have invaded science. Just another scare tactic. We should look at the science and scare tactics 15-20 yrs ago. Shouldnt we be frying by now?
12-16-2009, 01:22 PM
Man made Global Warming does 2 things VERY well:
1) Creates a new derivatives market (as outlined in my previous post)
2) Replaces the Judeo-Christian standards of morality that the US was founded on, with a 'new relative morality' for which they (politicians, al gore and his disciples) are the lone prophets.
Which means IF you will just believe them, they can do whatever they want in the name of 'new morality' Cut off water to the Central California farmers responsible for 70% of domestic produce? Saddle US car makers with expensive, unnecessary processes that Asian car companies are not subject to - even though they can trade to us with no restriction and we suffer volume limitations and hefty tariffs to export to them? Via the radical environmental agenda we now have the 'moral obligation' not only to allow such things but also to champion them...
Your fastest weight is your best weight
12-16-2009, 01:22 PM
BTW, who remembers the Ozone layer scare?
Another thing that puzzles me; every time someone points out that there is more ice here or record cold there, someone shoots right back with the old "well, the warming in another part of the world is causing that".
Why were no scientists predicting that ten years ago but knew that Manhattan would be under water due to melting ice in twenty years?
12-17-2009, 10:02 AM
It's not a conspiracy anymore than any other dip**** leftist cause has been. Through history there has always been a group of Malthusians, even before Malthus, who claimed the world was going to end and the only way to stop it was to give them money and power. More recently this has taken the form of claiming we have to go to Socialism now. It's called "Therefore, Socialism." Exploding population, therefore, Socialism. Falling population, therefore, Socialism. Nulcear weapons, therefore, Socialism. Energy crisis, therefore, Socialism. We're living in a post scarcity world, therefore, Socialism. Environment under siege, therefore, Socialism...
Environmentalism and the green movement are just, for various reasons, the biggest such movement to date. It's a threat to be certain, but no more coordinated than any other such movement. The CRU letters only prove that sticking a bunch of politically like minded people together, giving them a cause, money and power, will lead to ****ty results. It's not like they were coordinating with some central mastermind. Al Gore is not Cobra Commander. There are just carrots in this world that people agree on and often chase in unison, nothing more, nothing less.
12-17-2009, 11:20 AM
As an engineer, I have followed the global warming issue with great interest. From everything I have read I believe that it is a complete hoax. Step back for a minute and think about the situation. As a scientist, I am being subsidized by the government to study the environment and see if there are any catastrophic global issues of significance. If I find nothing, I am out of a job. So I will work until I find something of plausible consequence (i.e. global warming, asteroid issues, sun spots, universal entropy, etc.), this is my job. The weather follows many predictable cycles, some are well documented some are not but we know of their existence. Moreover, deforestation causes the jet streams, which affect the weather throughout the world, to change slightly. This will create havoc with the weather systems and cause climatic shifts (i.e. the ice cap may be melting on one area but increasing in another due to climatic weather shifts in the atmosphere). This can and does cause increased hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. But the bottom line is that the Bible (the actual word of GOD) predicts these things and assures us that the world will always be in existence and will always have the ability to support life. One day Jesus himself will return to earth and restore order, this is a guarantee from GOD himself. So I wouldn’t be too concerned with Algor and his global warming campaign. Trust the Bible so far it has been 100% accurate in its predictions.
12-17-2009, 11:31 AM
You were doing fine until you lost credibility.
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
12-17-2009, 11:45 AM
12-17-2009, 11:52 AM
12-17-2009, 12:57 PM
12-17-2009, 01:03 PM
The Bible has no place in discussions of science. The very problem here is faith; too many researchers had faith that they were right about anthropogenic global warming, and so were judging science by results, not by the integrity of the process and data.
12-17-2009, 01:06 PM
12-17-2009, 01:06 PM
I have been a Christian for over 35 years and I am more convinced of the existence of GOD than I have ever been in my life. Yes I have read most of Bible skeptics. These articles are written by people who have not done their research and don’t really understand scripture. Some of the staunchest biblical defenders are those who have tried to prove the Bible to be wrong. I don't have time to address all issues but the first is that Adam didn't die. The Bible here is not just referring to physical death but spiritual death which both Adam and Eve both suffered instantaneously upon sinning. They also suffered physical death but this was the beginning of a degenerative process that happen over time. Let me as you this question, is your body degenerating as you age? In any case the Bible doesn’t need defending, it has survived countless attacks and has survived for thousands of years and is still the bestselling book in the world. In some countries people are willing to risk their lives to obtain a copy. I invite to earnestly study the scriptures yourself and not rely on the information provided by Biblical skeptics.
12-17-2009, 01:34 PM
That argument can be used for both sides.These articles are written by people who have not done their research and don’t really understand scripture.
1. Can you ever find a printing of the Bible with errors in it?(reproduced)
2. Are there translation issues in every other document and if so why not the Bible?
3. Were the books in the Bible hand selected by a councel that leaft some out?
3. Is there anything in the world that Man has been involved with that hasn't been corrupted?
We place so much faith into a book while saying it's the word of God and there's no way that it could be incorrect because it was guided by God. yet time and time again we see examples thoughout history on how those with ulterior motives can change what God does and stands for.
At one point in time god was fierce and unforgiving and swift in His punishment. (fire and Brimstone preaching)
Not too long after the same Bible is being used to preach about God's kindness and forgiveness. How is it that the words didn't change but somehow what God said and meant did? Did everyone living under the Christian title go to Hell because they preached and lived under a different God?
12-17-2009, 01:58 PM
Here again too many issues to be address all at once. Yes the Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew was meticulously maintained throughout the history. This was verified by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course translating between the original Greek and Hebrew poses some difficulties due to the differences in languages, but in general the King James and the NIV versions are very close to the original and contain many references to the original texts. Moreover, most Biblical scholars study the Bible from one of these translations in conjunction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts.
In reference to you question about God dealing with people differently, God deals with people differently in different dispensations. In the Old Testament God dealt harshly with the Jews in order to keep them pure. It was not his desire but he called them a wicked and adulterous generation. They continually sought after false gods. The only why he could keep them pure was through discipline. Just like a wayward child. Purity was essential for the birth of Jesus Christ through the blood line of David so that he will eventually be the rightful ruler of Israel. Today we are in the church age. Since the advent of Jesus Christ, God has turned his attention to the born again Christians and the development of his church. He is not done with Israel; he will deal with them again during the tribulation period. Once again in a very harsh manner, read the book of Revelation. Apparently this is necessary to bring back to God; again they have sought after false gods.
12-17-2009, 02:02 PM
12-17-2009, 02:03 PM
12-17-2009, 02:03 PM
12-17-2009, 02:12 PM
"Today we are in the church age. Since the advent of Jesus Christ, God has turned his attention to the born again Christians and the development of his church. He is not done with Israel; he will deal with them again during the tribulation period. Once again in a very harsh manner, read the book of Revelation. Apparently this is necessary to bring back to God; again they have sought after false gods."
This is incredibly insulting to NONChristians (and the subcategory of jews), and is indicative of why exclusionary religions are also mostly intolerant of others. Not that I believe in your god, but the arrogance of thinking that you are the center of his attention is neurotic and almost laughable.
However, as Jayhawkk warned, the only religion in this thread is the AGW cult.
Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
12-17-2009, 04:04 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By mrcoolboy15 in forum General ChatReplies: 62Last Post: 02-16-2007, 10:10 PM
- By Jayhawkk in forum News and ArticlesReplies: 26Last Post: 02-03-2007, 01:07 PM
- By CHAPS in forum General ChatReplies: 80Last Post: 08-22-2006, 09:02 PM
- By QUICKRYDE in forum PoliticsReplies: 70Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:49 AM
- By kwyckemynd00 in forum PoliticsReplies: 29Last Post: 09-06-2005, 06:49 PM