Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CDB]

most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...

Really? According to who? From Red Hot Lies, "Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, 'To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?' … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement..."

And according to a recently released report, article and original report are linked Invalid Link Removed, over 650 scientists, ranging from climatologists to astro physicists, disagree with or are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

So where is this consensus? Unless of course by 'most scientists' you only mean the ones who agree with the theory, conveniently dismissing the many who don't. Which has basically been the approach to this consensus all along on this subject: except for everyone who disagrees, we all agree...

and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon.

Then you are economically illiterate and should go back to school. All the 'actions' proposed will do nothing but cripple our productive capacity, consign massive portions of the third world and some of the first to abject and possibly perpetual poverty, and in the end do nothing to halt the process of warming while doing everything to make sure resources are misallocated and wasted throughout the global economy so they can't be used efficiently to fight the problem if it does exist.

The base claim of the Do Something! crowd is that by giving the government mass control over energy resources and industry planning we can somehow achieve greater efficiency. Unfortunately we have shitloads of real world data to suggest that this approach, otherwise known as socialism, doesn't work even under normal circumstances and will work even worse under stressful ones. So if you want economic collapse and environmentalism of the type that lead to the poisoned triangle in the old USSR by all means keep backing the idea of Doing Something! at all costs.

Fortunately the world is full of scientists and especially economists who aren't so thick, and who understand that resources allocated to one sector mean shortfalls in others; otherwise known as opportunity cost. Which is why the people with some sense on this issue say something along the lines of, "We need to know what specifically about it is true, and then we can go over the most cost effective ways of making a difference in the most critical areas." But a scattershot let's assume it's all true and through as much **** at the wall to see what works approach is sure to destroy a massive amount of wealth, and I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.

the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive.

This is, to be blunt, complete bullshit. The oportunity cost alone of using the governments of the world to reallocate the necessary resources to fight this issue, especially with the current 'at all costs' attitude, would cripple the world economy.

the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)

I'm agnostic and I drive a Honda Fit, so once more, you are flat out wrong. Put bluntly, you should do more than listen to an Al Gore speech on the subject if you truly want to learn about it and what, if it's true and if anything, we can do about it.

 

[futurepilot]

I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.

I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.

 

[CDB]

I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.

I've heard better arguments from a rusty Ford. Do you have anything but nonsense to add to the discussion?

Fact: economic activity is, at base, the rearrangement of the material world into combinations more beneficial to mankind than raw resources. The only way for man to stop having an impact on the environment is to totally stop almost all economic activity. I dare to ask a question of one so intelligent, but you are of course aware that everything man does from the fuels we burn to provide energy for our current standard of living to the way we zone and use land will affect the environment, right? And the only way to truly minimize our impact on that environment is to stop the recombination of resources except at the most basic levels.

More specifically, this means greenies want us to give up our very capital structure which is based on fossil fuel before we can utilize it to build and perfect more efficient/less impacting power sources such as solar and wind. As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

 

[futurepilot]

As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.

See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.

I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.

It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.

 

[CDB]

The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.

Incorrect. Errors are the following: how the economy is structured is not a choice. It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation. We also can not have a budget surplus so long as the government spends more than it takes in, unless of course it doesn't count debt and inflation in its book keeping. Also, the fuel of choice isn't arrived at randomly or through a committee, it is chosen on a marginal basis. And the plain fact of the matter is no fuel source existing right now can compete on a marginal basis with oil/gas and won't until people are forced to economize and voluntarily choose alternatives.

See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.

Some of which are practical, other measures of which are government sibsidized and thus require a loss be taken elsewhere. As a hypothetical example take the rooftop water heaters. They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons. Mandating their use in an area for which they are unfit means people will end up losing wealth, not gaining it as they would in a mutually beneficial and agreed upon exhchange. The only true way to know what is beneficial for one person vs another in any given situation is to let them choose among various solutions, not to force government mandates down their throats. I'm not saying the options you see in other countries are not workable here, but which ones would serve whose interests best is not a choice to be made centrally by some bureacracy totally removed from the situation.

I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.

As a point of fact we never stopped living off the land, we just got a hell of a lot better at doing it through specialization and the division of labor. The economy you see around you is not something we inherret without any strings attach, it is due to years of advancement in specialization, division of labor, and capital accumulation over time.

It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.

And even taken at face value we are not doing so gratuitously, we are doing so for a reason, or in other words the changes we are causing there are because of other beneficial changes we are getting elsewhere. Now let us trust the government to change things. Except, in point of fact, the government is the problem and is generally causing these issues. You don't see over logging in private forrests, you do see it in government controlled forrests where logging rights are leased but no one owns the forrest. You don't see dumping in private waterways but you do see it in government waterways and in the commons, the ocean, where no one is allowed to stake out property and demand payment for use or to exclude users.

Put simply you only see overuse and dumping in areas where for various reasons, usually involving heavy government intervention, property rights have not been allowed to work and in fact have been actively stifled. This is where an economics education comes in handy, because resources that are owned and this rationally priced on the market do not become over used. The commons do become over used because they are perpetually under priced.

 

[Mjolnir]

wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?

and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."

it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...

Nah Global Warming is bullsheet, at least in the sense its been portrayed recently, the world will continue to vary in temperature for all time and nothing that is done will affect it either way. It is what it is, literally. The world has been around for awhile and we havnt burned to death or frozen over yet that and there hasnt been factual scientific proof that the world will either go into a new ice age or just burn up.

 

[Mjolnir]

And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.

 

[CDB]

And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.

Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.

 

[futurepilot]

It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation.

They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons.

Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.

Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.

Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.

 

[CDB]

Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.

Actually, it is, and the fact that you don't know that shows how much you have to learn about it. The economy is an example of a bottom up spontaneous order, similar to other systems such as language. That governments in collusion with some business leaders attempt to impose order from the top down doesn't change this. In fact, it is those attempts to interfere with and direct the market that usually end up leading to recessions and/or wars.

Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.

The problem is if you leave the decision up to the government the result will be political, not marginal. Hence if a congressman from Seattle has a brother in law who makes such rooftop heaters, you can bet your ass that all of a sudden they'll become ideally suited for homes in Seattle.

Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.

It is an argument agains the government trying these things, because the government is not subject to a profit loss test. Hence anything they do gets paid for through tax funds, there is no chance to find out if it was really desired, works well, or works better than alternatives.

 

[dsade]

Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.

It is a pleasure to see rational thought in action.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing

It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers Invalid Link Removed to deny the reality of global climate change.
Invalid Link Removed

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.
Invalid Link Removed

But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Invalid Link Removed This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

• The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data Invalid Link Removed . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

• Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts Invalid Link Removed , where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. Invalid Link Removed

But don't look too close Invalid Link Removed ! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

• The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations Invalid Link Removed – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.

This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.

It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

• Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies Invalid Link Removed . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

• Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog. Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Invalid Link Removed This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.

• The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data Invalid Link Removed . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.

• Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts Invalid Link Removed

No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

• The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations Invalid Link Removed

Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.

is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed.

Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed Invalid Link Removed.

• Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies Invalid Link Removed . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.

 

[DAdams91982]

Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8"]YouTube- Jon Stewart Talks Climategate[/ame]

 

[Bionic]

I think we should take Gore's Nobel Prize and give it to CDB.

 

[CDB]

Invalid Link Removed

This just in. The Institute for Scriptural Geology in Waco, Texas, today offered “unswerving support and fervent prayers” for the scientists caught up in Climategate. Professor Elmer Moody, director of the institute, told a press conference: “We know what it’s like to have the integrity of our research questioned by unbelievers, so our hearts go out to those good folks at the East Anglican University.

 

[Jayhawkk]

HAHAHAAHAHAHA

 

[lutherblsstt]

Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.

Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed Invalid Link Removed.



Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.

Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.

Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.

I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.

Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.

For once I actually agree the governments of the world are doing the right thing and now everyone else is going on about conspiricies ! Its like 911 - in reverse.

I give up.

 

[DAdams91982]

Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.

Time and time and time again scientist have come out saying it's a sham. In the 80s it was cooling, then global warming, now climate change. There is ONLY one common element here, and that is earth it self. Weather is cyclical and unpredictable. Now was the ice age's caused by human burning fossil fuels? Now, THAT science is seemingly ignored in the sensational BS that is put out today. Lets not forget the ocean floor is covered in Co2 eating plant life, and that takes up over 75% of the world.

Climate change is just more buzz words as you put it. But they are words used to tax the world and make few the money. It's a way to industrialize environmentalism.

 

[CDB]

Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.

Another way to know the Alarmist when you speak with him: playing a shell game with settled science when the discussion is over unsettled science.

Yes, Luther. Very, very good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You may be surprised to realize NO ONE IS ****ING DISPUTING THAT. Most skeptics do not even dispute that the Earth has warmed and that CO2 likely played a role. Now, pay close attention. What IS being disputed are the catastrophic scenarios which are ENTIRELY based on completely ****ed computer models and the very, very shaky, totally unproven, and self contradictory ASSUMPTION that the Earth's climate is dominated by long term positive feedbacks. Specifically the charge is the climate was marvelously stable until we started burning fossil fuels. However, any jackass with even a passing knowledge of how feedback works knows that systems dominated by long term positive feedbacks tend toward volatility, NOT stability.

But please, continue to set up strawmen and avoiding the actual issues so you can continue being a mouth piece for the ****suckers at GISS.

Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.

a

No, it's a basic scientific fact that you are trying to substitute for a complex unsettled analysis of the equillibrium achieved in a complex chaotic open ended system like the climate. Once more, if you had clue ****ing one about what you were talking about, you would know that a first order change in one or even a few such variables in such a system DOES NOT lead to long or even short term predictable results, even if you know how the feedbacks work and can model them accurately, which we don't and which we can't, as admitted in the very emails you call 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' below.

I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.

Then maybe you should actually READ the skeptics, such as the link I posted in my first response. Because, once more and read carefully, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. No go run along and read some more.

Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.

If you think those emails are 'scraping the bottom of the barrel', then quite frankly you don't have a clue what you're talking about. That kind of crap coming out of a medical trial for a new drug would not only discredit the drug and the company/scientists studying it, it would likely result in serious criminal charges. Sloppy and quick might be good enough for climate 'science', in other fields of science these guys would have already been sent scuttling home with their balls in their hip pockets and an ass cheek in each hand. Jesus Christ, I have to maintain higher standards when we're measuring and validating the performance of my company's ****ing call center.

If you're going to engage in this debate, here or elsewhere, I'd suggest you drop out of your usual remedial mode of cutting and pasting uncritically the positions of others. You're going to have your ass handed to you right quick if you do that and justifiably so.

 

[phL8Tme]

I'm 900+ feet above sea level, 300 miles south of the Canadian border. I love palm trees.


Bring it on I say!

Hang on a sac. they can't get the weather right 12 hrs before it's supposed to happen. Why trust 110 yrs of past records? Specially when the scientists that claim global warming is real were caught fudging the facts?

 

[lutherblsstt]

Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed Invalid Link Removed.



Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.

I'm well aware of what peer review is and how it is supposed to work.

It is funny, the comment in one of the emails about redefining what peer review means has been taken as some egregious overstep when in reality it comes down to well known problems with one journal. In that case a horrible paper got pushed through a prestigious journal by a single editor ("skeptic").

Within a month the paper had several rebuttals published in regards to it. It severely tarnished the reputation of the journal that such bad science got published and resulted in several editors resigning because they were embarrassed to be associated with the journal. Of course "skeptics" keep pointing to that article while ignoring that it has been dismissed as bad science.

As for the FOIA stuff, they should have released the data to McIntyre. Most of the data was publicly available already but they didn't want to help him in particular.

What would you would think if Jim Hansen made strongly declarative statements contradicting the general consensus of nuclear physicists.

Put that in the context of Dyson and climate change.

This quote from Dyson (found on Wikipedia) I think sums things up well:

"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

He's admitting ignorance, but yeah, great example.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.

Firstly business is business. The oil industry is probably the richest on the planet and oil is currently the lifelblood of our society. Like any business when threatened by a competitior it moves to protect itself. It is a FACT that exxon Mobil paid scientists to support their case it even offered $10000 to anyone who would write papers which dispute the ~UNs climate study. He can read abouit it here :

Invalid Link Removed

Is it really hard to believe that a huge business would play dirty to protect its own business interests or that it would be short sighted and not consider the consequences on their own grandchildren ? Humans behave like this all the time.

For the record some oil giants are changing the way they operate and I admire them for this. Exxon are not one of them.

No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

Ok you are quoting a handfull of scientists - 99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. If you are sincere then do some research - how many climate scientists (not physisists, molecular biologists etc - people who are focussed on climate science are the people we should listen to with regard to climate science) agree and how many dont.

I think you will find the vbast majority agree AGW is a problem .
In fact please give me a couple examples of people who have not been able to get their papers reviewed by established journals and we can discuss them.

Some people may be turned down for review because ther papers are totally unscientific - some people are know to have received money form oil companies etc etc but Id like to see some specific examples rather than just generalised accusations.

As for the scientist you mention - five minutes on google reveal :

Freeman Dyson is a particle physisits not a climate scientist so his opinion is not relevant if it disagrees with the majority of climate scientists anymore than the opinion of a climate scientist that the theory of relativity is incorrect should be taken over the majority of physisists. Besides Dyson doesnt even disagree that human CO2 emmisions are a problem.
Please feel free to name any other scientists you feel relevant to the argument and we can discuss them.



Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

The only people who are qualified to talk on climate change are climate scientists which is why I say we should listen to what the majority of them are saying to us, stop trying to discredit them because we simply dont want to believe what they are saying, stop arguing and make the changes necessary before it is too late. People will make money out of anything they can - Id rather they made mopney out of clean renewable energy than dirty destructive fossil fuels.

It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work.

For some reason people who disagree with AGW like to resort to insults rather than facts - no doubt as a result of frustration due to a lack of a factual or reasoned basis to their arguments. I know what a peer review is and the vast majority of peer reviewed papers on climate science show an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that anthopogenic CO2 emmisions are causing the planet to warm.

It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.

Scientists have had to put up with bribery to discredit their findings, they have found their names on petitions they did not sign presented to congress disputing AGW and a plethora of other dirty tricks to try and discredit them . It does not suprise me at all if they try and hide data from a people who will grasp at any straw possible to bundermine basic climate science and thus influence governments to stop takin the actions that we need to take.

At the end of the day of course climate scientists may be wrong. Even they can say with only 90 percent probability what will happen if we dont reduce CO2 emmisiions.

So you have a choice :

if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

If they are right and we ignore them it could result in a total disaster.

Neither of us are climate scientists so I suggest we stop moaning and listen to the people that are.

 

[DAdams91982]

So you have a choice :

if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

At what price? You are effectively missing the point that taking over the energy sector is taking over an insurmountable amount of power. Just like health care.

If this administration wanted to push for cleaner energy, then they would have taken that crap TARP money and started building Nuclear Power Plants all over the US, putting Americans to work, with an end game to cleaner energy. Not to mention the energy companies would be able to start paying back the money to build said plants immediately upon turning it on.

Cap n Trade is nothing more than a power grab and a way to tax the hell out of everyone in America.

 

[CDB]

I'm well aware of what peer review is and how it is supposed to work.

Then I'm sure you'll denounce the attempts of those at Hadley, Mann, Schmidt, et al, to butt **** the process.

It is funny, the comment in one of the emails about redefining what peer review means has been taken as some egregious overstep when in reality it comes down to well known problems with one journal. In that case a horrible paper got pushed through a prestigious journal by a single editor ("skeptic").

Actually the quote you are referring to about "redefining" is about redefining what the "peer reviewed literature is", not the one about freezing out a "troublesome" editor. Once more, get your ****ing facts straight. By redefining what the "peer reviewed literature is" Jones was threatening to exclude already reviewed and published papers from finding their way into the IPCC report.

Within a month the paper had several rebuttals published in regards to it.

Pray tell, which paper are you referring to?

As for the FOIA stuff, they should have released the data to McIntyre. Most of the data was publicly available already but they didn't want to help him in particular.

You don't get to pick and choose who has access to an FOI request. Trying to do so is called a federal crime.

What would you would think if Jim Hansen made strongly declarative statements contradicting the general consensus of nuclear physicists.

Had I not known before what a devious lying **** he is, I'd listen/read his opinion respectfully. However, you do not need to be a client 'scientist' to understand statistics. You do not need to be a climate 'scientist' to understand tree rings. You do not need to be a climate 'scientist' to understand that manual, arbitrary 'adjustments' to get rid of 'blips' you can't explain in the data aren't acceptable. In fact the NAS report and Wegman's input specifically said these *******s should open their doors a bit with regard to statisticians, since I don't think one of them has managed to reference a standard work on the subject once, and they only had one ****ing statistician working with them.

This quote from Dyson (found on Wikipedia) I think sums things up well:

"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

He's admitting ignorance, but yeah, great example.

That's a quote from Wikipedia, dipstick. Which, incidentally, the climate 'scientists' keep a close watch on because anything remotely skeptical of AGW theory gets editted within hours of being posted with Real Climate Speak word for word 'refutations'. See the original article about Dyson for more. And your **** out of luck anyway, because the behavior of those people is the one thing as a respected scientist himself that he is undisputably qualified to judge.

Firstly business is business. The oil industry is probably the richest on the planet and oil is currently the lifelblood of our society. Like any business when threatened by a competitior it moves to protect itself. It is a FACT that exxon Mobil paid scientists to support their case it even offered $10000 to anyone who would write papers which dispute the ~UNs climate study. He can read abouit it here :

Invalid Link Removed

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, they are all angels who float above mere fripperies such as having to earn a living and feed their kids. However a few mil from Exxon is the end of the world. And 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.

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. And the lion's share of the funding is on the proponents side. There's no money to be gained beyond what's already being gained in proving AGW wrong. 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. Thank God those climate 'scientists' are such trustworthy, pure, stain free, angelic types who wouldn't in the farthest reaches of the most corrupt world even be for a milisecond tempted by such stunning amounts of money, by nice tax payer subsidized trips to Rio and the like for Earth Conferences, for the prestige of being known and quoted by world leaders, etc., etc., etc. Thank God for it.

For the record some oil giants are changing the way they operate and I admire them for this. Exxon are not one of them.

Then your gullible as hell and the most uncritical thinker on this Earth. Why don't you check the 'investments' these companies like Shell and BP have made into 'alternative' energy sources, and what an assload of tax payer money will be heading their way thanks to their 'change of heart' you so admire them for.

But I'm sure that payday had nothing to do with their decisions.

Ok you are quoting a handfull of scientists - 99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. If you are sincere then do some research - how many climate scientists (not physisists, molecular biologists etc - people who are focussed on climate science are the people we should listen to with regard to climate science) agree and how many dont.

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. Data and methods that are robust enough to produce results that stand the test of time are what lead to eventualy consensus by default. 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.

I don't give a **** about consensus because unlike you I actually understand the scientific process and know damn well consensus not only does not matter, it must be assiduously ignored or knowledge would never advance past what everyone thought we already knew for sure.

Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was flat.

Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that it was the middle of the universe.

Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that bleeding patients helped them.

Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was only a few thousand years old and we came from a garden that an angry sky fairy kicked us out of for eating too much fruit and ****ting on His creation.

Freeman Dyson is a particle physisits not a climate scientist so his opinion is not relevant if it disagrees with the majority of climate scientists anymore than the opinion of a climate scientist that the theory of relativity is incorrect should be taken over the majority of physisists. Besides Dyson doesnt even disagree that human CO2 emmisions are a problem.
Please feel free to name any other scientists you feel relevant to the argument and we can discuss them.

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. Mcintyre is a man who made his living - meaning actual accountability for his work - analyzing statistics specifically to ferret out exagerated claims in mining which means more than a passing familiarity with geology. Whether you, Gavid ****, Jones, or Mann like it or not, he IS qualified to speak on work that is highly statistical in nature. I know it's a crime to have earned a living in the private sector amongst your type, but the rest of us do it every day and think it's worth while.

Watt is a meteorologist who knows more than a bit about where to stick temperature measuring equipment. And you don't have to be a climate 'scientist' anyway to know that sticking a thermometer up the ass end of a rutting mule or right above a ****ing BBQ might affect the readings.

For some reason people who disagree with AGW like to resort to insults rather than facts - no doubt as a result of frustration due to a lack of a factual or reasoned basis to their arguments. I know what a peer review is and the vast majority of peer reviewed papers on climate science show an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that anthopogenic CO2 emmisions are causing the planet to warm.

You apparently don't know what peer review is nor what it is for, because as has been pointed out a few billion times to date by all those horrible skeptics, those 'indepdent' papers which validate each other's findings rely on 80-90% of the same exact data and are often written/reviewed by the same group of ten ****ing people. Pielke did a nice review of the 'peer reviewed' literature not too long ago, looks like the IPCC was ignoring the massive chunk of it that contradicted it's desired results. Oh, yeah, there are several hundred peer reviewed papers all of which show a massive warming in the middle ages. You know, the warming period your favorite climate 'scientists' want to erase and tried. And wow, how good of Keith Briffa to replicate the hockey stick graph using such robust and sound data... a single ****ing tree to cover nine years of temperature data. Even though a stand nearby of more than 30 didn't show any such pattern.

Scientists have had to put up with bribery to discredit their findings, they have found their names on petitions they did not sign presented to congress disputing AGW and a plethora of other dirty tricks to try and discredit them . It does not suprise me at all if they try and hide data from a people who will grasp at any straw possible to bundermine basic climate science and thus influence governments to stop takin the actions that we need to take.

That's called "Begging the Question." And I don't give two flying ****s what they've had to endure. Their work is going to cost the world trillions in jobs and force a significant amount of people either to or below the poverty line. Releasing their data isn't an option. You don't get to keep it secret because you just know someone's going to try to discredit you. The way to avoid getting discredited is to do a good job in your ****ing research, not hack it together and make lame excuses as to why you can't let anyone know how you did it or with what data.

if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

If they are right and we ignore them it could result in a total disaster.

Neither of us are climate scientists so I suggest we stop moaning and listen to the people that are.

This is what's called a "False Dilema". 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. 'Cleaner' fuels don't just drop out of your ass, 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. So I]ll tell you what,, once those pricks start respecting my science, I'll start respecting theirs. Because I may not be qualified to speak to their science, 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.

 

[DR.D]

Invalid Link Removed

Come on man, don't post that crap. I will hunt you down, cut your power, and do you with the lights off next time. :kiss:

 

[DR.D]

...99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. ...

Luther, why do you think you have this all figured out? You're setting yourself up to be just another fanatic following the most current 'winner'. There is more to consider than just the numbers and tangibles. Be silent and dwell on all this in prayer, then form a thought of your own with Spiritual insight, there is no place for all this prejudice and preconception you possess.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Another way to know the Alarmist when you speak with him: playing a shell game with settled science when the discussion is over unsettled science.

Yes, Luther. Very, very good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You may be surprised to realize NO ONE IS ****ING DISPUTING THAT.

Actually yes they are – one of the most common arguments from climate skeptics is that CO2 cannot contribute to global warming because CO2 levels increase after the warming.

Most skeptics do not even dispute that the Earth has warmed and that CO2 likely played a role. Now, pay close attention. What IS being disputed are the catastrophic scenarios which are ENTIRELY based on completely ****ed computer models and the very, very shaky, totally unproven,

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 ?

and self contradictory ASSUMPTION that the Earth's climate is dominated by long term positive feedbacks.

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 .

Specifically the charge is the climate was marvelously stable until we started burning fossil fuels.

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.

For example they are usually happy to point out that it was 15 degrees warmed during the time of the dinosaurs or that it was only when bacteria started sequesting CO2 and crapping out oxygen that life was able evolve. What they are saying is that we are contributing significantly to global warming by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and that we can control the warming to an extent by ceasing to do this . Although some climate change and warming events are out of our control such as warming due to sunspot activity (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.

However, any jackass with even a passing knowledge of how feedback works knows that systems dominated by long term positive feedbacks tend toward volatility, NOT stability.

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.
Human CO2 emissions could (and climate scientist predict are likely to) lead to several positive feedback situations which although are not “stable” are nonetheless worrying. Namely :

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.

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.

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 .

But please, continue to set up strawmen and avoiding the actual issues so you can continue being a mouth piece for the ****suckers at GISS.

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 assure you if you can actually prove me wrong with a logical argument I will admit I am wrong and change my opinion but the only way to do that is with facts and reason not “hot air”.

Once more, if you had clue ****ing one about what you were talking about, you would know that a first order change in one or even a few such variables in such a system DOES NOT lead to long or even short term predictable results,

Once more climate scientists are telling us what they think will happen to the best of their ability. They may be wrong they are doing their best, and they certainly a lot more about it than you do.

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 wouldnt start ranting at particle physisists and hacking into their computer systems to prove that the search for higgs bosen is futile - yet because cliamte science is going to cost people money and the largest industry on the planet is threatened everyone suddewnly feels qualified to argue with them .

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 .

This does not mean I cannot think for myself it simply means that I respect the years of hard work, discipline and study that these people have put in to become experts in their field and realise that I cannot hope to compete with that without doing the same.

The fact of the matter is that climate scientists do know what they are talking about compared to untrained people like you and me .

I am sure climate scientists are aware of feedback systems , unpredictable climate complexities and the fact that their models are inadequate to predict the weather with absolute certainty . However despite this , due to the warming properties of CO2 and a wealth of other evidence which links warmer temperatures and CO2, they have still decided to warn us that the level of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is very likely to cause a serious threat to us.

Of course there are possibilities they are wrong and disputed areas of climate science like there are in any branch of science. They can only say what is likely to happen however this does invalidate their warnings. However you dont find people disputing the theory of relativity in the same way even though AGW has a greater scientific consensus than relativity. Why ? Because there are no direct economic consequences to the findings of their research.

Again I ask you who are these numerous climate scientists who dispute human CO2 emmisions could pose a serious threat to us ?

Because, once more and read carefully, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS.

I find it strange that you admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we are pumping billions of tons of it into the atmosphere yet you believe we should ignore the warning of the majority of climate scientists that it poses a grave threat to us .

Well any further responses will have to wait till after the weekend.

 

[CDB]

Actually yes they are – one of the most common arguments from climate skeptics is that CO2 cannot contribute to global warming because CO2 levels increase after the warming.

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.

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.

Wrong again. The IPCC, which is in reality a handful of people not "thousands of scientists," even admit this in their own graphs. The graph of warming for CO2 is ridiculously low and that's based on what's likely an over estimated sensitivity. All the catastrophic warming scenarios are, once more, based on model predictions with the assumption of long term positive feedbacks, an assumption that's belied by the claims of climate stability to date, and a host of poorly understood feedback mechanisms. Specifically they don't understand the precipitation cycle, clouds, the reasons for warming at different atmospheric depths, the role of the oceans, nor have their models been able to properly backcast without massive manual adjustments, nor have their models predicted the current cooling trend because they admittedly leave out natural climate cycles like the pacific oscillation.

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 .

I did, I said I don't know nor give a **** because it's completely irrelevant. If consensus is the result of a sound process it is still irrelevant. And it is the process that's in question here.

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 ?

If that vast majority of experts then leak a ****load of emails stating that their skeptics do have valid points but they should be ignored and denigrated and downplayed in public, and that they intend to stifle any public disagreement, freeze out any authors and editors who disagree with them, rig the review process, supress already published and reviewed papers, hide and destroy data in violation of federal law in the US and Europe, not to mention emails discussing specifically how to deal with skeptics regardless of credentials (according to Trenberth, just attack them as dumb and unqualified, sound familiar?), I'd think twice about their 'advice'.

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 .

Irrelevant to the point. The so called tipping point for the feedbacks is temperature, not CO2 levels. And according to several hundred peer reviewed and published studies, the Medieval Warm Period and other periods much further back in the Earth's history were not only a ****ton hotter than now, there have also been periods of massively higher CO2 atmospheric content, and no run away greenhouse affect occurred. Hence why the MWP has to be removed from all IPCC and other alarmist graphs. And the reason CO2 levels aren't the claimed tipping point and temperature is, is because all these 'scientists' know damn well that CO2 is a bare **** percentage point of the atmostphere that's been massively higher in the past with no problems to show for it.

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 .

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. Wouldn't want that inconvenient truth getting out, because it not only means their research over states warming by failing to take into account for that group of proxies, it also means what most people with common sense already know: warmer temperatures are good for plant life. There's no shortage of life at the equator, plant or animal. It's in the arid regions of the Earth that life hangs on by its fingernails. The effects of global warming, even if true, are predicted to hit the higher altittudes, which means more arable land, longer growing seasons, more plant life. Oh the ****ing horror of it all.

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.

Do you even think before you type? The stability of our society depends on that energy production for Christ's sake. The stability of the climate may be at issue, the way to deal with it isn't to cripple our productive capacity by knocking out our major energy source.

No climate scientist has ever claimed that the Earths climate was marvellously stable until we started pumping CO2 into it. Quite the reverse actually.

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 hockey stick graph: a long period of little to no change followed by a huge increase in temperatures.

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.

Another bull**** claim. The reasoning behind the statement that natural causes can't account for all the warming is not study and data, but models. The scientists assume that because their precious models can't predict the warming without man made influences that there must then be man made influences. I don't think it's actually possible to tally all the logical fallacies in that line of reasoning without frying your own brain. And, 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.

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.

Provincial in the extreme. Our climate is distinct to our planet alone and a single case study. 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. 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.

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.

Antarctic ice formation is at an all time high, or was a year ago. Arctic ice is declining. The 'positive feedback cycle' is not only not proven, it's basically an assumption.

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.

Funny we're still here then... And actually we don't know the reason behind the PT extinction, it's hypothesized to be a mix of events, climate change being one of them. And it all happened without SUVs. Now let us suppose this does happen again. Our response should be to... destroy our ability to create and produce any solutions of significance by artificially capping our energy usage. Because this raises the other inconvenient truth for climate alarmists: they want to duck and cover and not solve the problem. If anything, what you've just posted proves that with or without our help the Earth goes through changes which can make living on it a bitch. We can take your route, cripple our production, put on beanie copter hats hooked to generators and stare into the wind to generate energy, and kiss our asses goodbye the second a natural change of this sort occurs. Good plan. Can't wait to see how it comes out.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually that's not what happened to Venus, but that's besides the point.

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 .

They haven't risen in direct trajectory with CO2 emissions. 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.

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 ?

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...

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.

I know a patent clerk who disputed newtonian physics. What a presumptuous prick he must have been.

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 .

Majority has no meaning in science, it is irrelevant. That you keep falling back on it shows you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about nor have you given a single critical thought to any of the arguments for or against global warming. You're still in parrot routine. The rest of your post is thus, not worth my ****ing time.

 

[jmh80]

Well it snowed in Houston today - and south Looziana.

We got nothing here in the nation's capital.

Global warming FTW.

 

[lutherblsstt]

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)

 

[lutherblsstt]

CDB wrote

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.

This demonstrates your ignorance. The dispute between Mann et al. and McIntyre has to do with how to statistically deal with historical climatic variation.

 

[CDB]

Luther,

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.

 

[lutherblsstt]

CDB wrote

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The controversial data of a minuscule amount of climate scientists does not undermine the whole global body of climate science.
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

Thank God someone had the balls to stand up to the consensus that the Earth was flat.

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.

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.

Would you take the opinion of a climate scientist criticising quantum entanglement seriously ?

Watt is a meteorologist etc etc .

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.
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.

the same group of ten ****ing people.

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed climate papers by thousands of different people.

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.

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.

'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.

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 .

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 ?

So I]ll tell you what,, once those pricks start respecting my science,

Which would be what exactly ?

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.

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 ?

Im all ears as to how renewable energy solutions that are already up and running in many countries are useless.

 

[lutherblsstt]

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.

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 ?

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.

Wrong again. The IPCC, which is in reality a handful of people not "thousands of scientists," even admit this in their own graphs.

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.

The IPCC receives contributions from thousands of people worldwide.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Venus freezes ? Neptune boils ? Pray tell.....

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.

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 !

Our response should be to... destroy our ability to create and produce any solutions of significance by artificially capping our energy usage.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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...

I would normally just refer to them as NASA.

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 ?

I know a patent clerk who disputed newtonian physics. What a presumptuous princess he must have been.

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 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 .

 

[CDB]

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 ?

No, I actually work in the 'green' industry and sell and integrate building systems aimed at energy conservation a la the LEED certification. I'm probably going to have to get the AP and the advisor cert myself soon.

Im all ears as to how renewable energy solutions that are already up and running in many countries are useless.

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.

Do you really want to get into an economics debate with me? Or worded another way, do you really want a red ass?

 

[CDB]

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.

 

[CDB]

Invalid Link Removed

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.

 

[CDB]

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...

 

[Jayhawkk]

It's all based on fa lawed understanding of how it works. Being right or wrong is pretty much a crap shoot.

 

[CDB]

It's all based on fa lawed understanding of how it works. Being right or wrong is pretty much a crap shoot.

I didn't see that disclaimer in the IPCC report.

 

[dsade]

It's all based on fa lawed understanding of how it works. Being right or wrong is pretty much a crap shoot.

Then the government has NO business destroying the economy (or our standard of living) until it's overwhelmingly clear that:

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.

 

[Jayhawkk]

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.

 

[CDB]

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.

I think you mean to the degree they say, not scale. The scale is global, no doubting that. But the degree of sensitivity is extremely arguable.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Ya, that

 

[lutherblsstt]

Do you really want to get into an economics debate with me?

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.

But cooling, as we're experiencing now, is natural variability....... the current cooling trend

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 "

Staticians were presented with gloabl temperature data without knowing what the data represented. They said the data indicated a clear rise.
Invalid Link Removed

In England, the average growing season now is two week shorter than it was before 1950

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 .

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.

Snowbanks today cover parts of Baffin Island that had been seasonably free of snow for 30 years.

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 .

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.
Invalid Link Removed

Pack ice around Iceland has become a serious hindrance to navigations. The per-acre hay yield has dropped 25 per cent

Again - the gulf stream drops just north of Iceland and again regional differences are not indicative of global temperatures.

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.
Invalid Link Removed

Professor Hubert H. Lamb of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain

Who died 13 years ago
Invalid Link Removed

Understanding has moved on a bit - not to mention the hottest decade on record has occurred.

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

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.

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...

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 .

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.

 

[jmh80]

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 work for Big Oil. I'm not reading all this crap in this thread but if you guys have questions on technical things involving hydrocarbon's - I'm around.

My experience is that people have little idea how the industry works. Lots of antonyms, homonyms, and myth.

Anyway.

 

[Tansui]

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