# Why is climate science political?



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

I don't see science as being a political issue. 

Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are. 

While I think the use of nuclear vs renewables is a political issue around the world, only in the US (and to a lesser extent, Australia) does climate change seem to be political. 

The Conservative parties of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand and  host of others ALL accept that human acitivty may be playing a role in climate change, and have developed policies to suit. 

In many cases, this means nuclear. 

But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is  left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 13, 2012)

Because republicans are idiots


----------



## Big Fitz (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...


 
(Highlighted by me)

See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.

The green movement is not scientific. It is a political movement to global ecofascism where an oligarchy of like minded Malthusian Luddites control what lives people can have in some arrogant vainglorious attempt of believing Man is all-powerful over the Earth and must 'save' it from us as well as 'save' ourselves from ourselves.

You will also notice that regardless of the outcome of the weather, it's AGW. Hot cold wet dry hail wind fire and frogs. It's all man's fault. This is not science. This is religion.

And why do the scientists persist? Three reasons: Money, Fear, Arrogance. Like a fire, take away any one of those elements and the movement dies because the science is not there.

Cue insane rebuttals in
3...
2...
1...


----------



## Truthmatters (May 13, 2012)

big fat hunks of money is the only reason


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

> *Why is climate science political? *



Because the IPCC is political.

Because "peer review" is political.

Because all of its "researchers" require continued funding from the political class.

Because all of its "solutions" are political.


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 13, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> big fat hunks of money is the only reason


Money AND Control.


----------



## saveliberty (May 13, 2012)

I want to echo that its not science.  There should be a provable hypothesis that leads to some type of predictable model.  The results should mirror the observable climate.  The Earth has generated periods of climate change before man was even here.  No smoking gun with man as the trigger.

We have debunked about every thought brought here by the Faithers.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



many policies were drafted back in the 1990's and early 2000's when there was a much stronger circumstantial case for global warming and disasterous results. now that the evidence and time frames are not in favour of CAGW many countries are not going through with expensive mitigation commitments but they find it hard to back away from the actual rhetoric that they signed. anytime someone decides to be careful with their money they are called conservative, anytime someone is willing to spend other people's money on a harebrained scheme with no possibility of success they are called a liberal.


----------



## tigerbob (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Why is it political?  Because it's about money.  On the one hand you've got the green lobby, supported by green energy.  On the other you've got the fossil fuels lobby.  The fossil fuels lobby want their businesses to continue to thrive, and can provide some data to call climate change theory into disrepute.  The green lobby have some data that may suggest human involvement in climate change, and the green energy industry wants that data to indicate that only curtailing the use of fossil fuels can save us from disaster.

As in all cases, follow the money.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> > *Why is climate science political? *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you just kinda decided all this, right?

There is absolutely no evidence at all of any of this....I just laugh when I here people say research is political, I really do. (My wife is a PhD researcher)

I suspect at any moment we'll here the Illuminati are behind climate change research.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

IanC said:


> disasterous results. now that the evidence and time frames are not in favour of CAGW many countries are not going through with expensive mitigation commitments but they find it hard to back away from the actual rhetoric that they signed. .



I look forward to seeing proof of this.


----------



## California Girl (May 13, 2012)

When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.
> 
> The green movement is not scientific. It is a political movement to global ecofascism where an oligarchy of like minded Malthusian Luddites control what lives people can have in some arrogant vainglorious attempt of believing Man is all-powerful over the Earth and must 'save' it from us as well as 'save' ourselves from ourselves.
> .



Right....the green movement is not scientific, and yet the National Academies of 30 odd countries, and at least another 30 major scientific bodies all people humans play a role in the climate. 

I don't know about you guys, but if I was going to say that the National Academy of Physicists and the Royal Academy of Sciences were wrong - I'd want a lot of science on my side. 

Instead what I see are strings of accusations with very little science. 

It reminds me a bit of Holocaudt Denial (no offense intended, it's only an analogy) in that it is easy to say the Holocaust never happened - but difficult to explain where the 6 million Jews went.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

California Girl said:


> When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.



Try reading the thread again - most conservative parties in the world are not in your camp.


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.
> ...


Conservative *political* parties.....DUUUH!


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I am fairly sure that the UK Conservative Party is:

a) conservative

b) political

What's your point?


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4]George Carlin on The Environment (HQ) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## freedombecki (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.
> ...


From the notes of Michael Coffman, PhD:



> "Exposing the Global Wamring Lie" - 2009
> This is extremely serious. Raw data is never deleted in sci*ence because  it would pre*vent research results from ever being ver*i*fied and  dupli*cated using the orig*inal data. This is at the core of the  sci*en*tific method. This entire affair tends to dis*credit _every_  research study that used the CRU sum*ma*rized data. It may mean that  there is no longer any orig*inal empir*ical sci*en*tific data that even  sug*gests that man is respon*sible for the twen*tieth cen*tury warming.  Even the com*puter models used to prove man-caused global warming are  made invalid because they all use CRU data in their models.



Errors of Omission for money, how convenient, and how political.


----------



## Douger (May 13, 2012)

It should be in the Religious section.


----------



## rdean (May 13, 2012)

Republicans see ALL science as "political".  What do you expect from people who believe "education is for snobs"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJOSwq3A]Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Errors of Omission for money, how convenient, and how political.



So how do you explain all of the conservative parties disagreeing with you and backing climate change?

UK Conservative Party

The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Errors of Omission for money, how convenient, and how political.
> ...


So, gullible Brits want to embrace economic ruin in order to  try and change the weather... So  what?


----------



## freedombecki (May 13, 2012)

rdean said:


> Republicans see ALL science as "political".  What do you expect from people who believe "education is for snobs"?
> 
> Santorum: Obama "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College - YouTube


Oh, rdean


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *Why is climate science political? *
> ...



if peer (pal) review wasnt political to some extent then how do you explain Mann being able to get away with using the upsidedown Tiljander cores? why hasnt outside science come down hard on this and demanded a retraction?


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> So, gullible Brits want to embrace economic ruin in order to  try and change the weather... So  what?



So do the French, the Germans, The Finns, The Kiwis, the Swedes, the Belgians, the Dutch.....

There is a point when you surely have to ask yourself - why do so many conservative parties not agree with you on this?

I mean....it IS all political, right?


----------



## freedombecki (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Errors of Omission for money, how convenient, and how political.
> ...


You're trying to me me responsible for what goes on in a foreign country, or 30 foreign countries, Saigon?

I don't remember my being pushed into being Empress of the Conservative Scientific Universe anytime recently. Do I really have to be?


----------



## freedombecki (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > So, gullible Brits want to embrace economic ruin in order to  try and change the weather... So  what?
> ...


You really should have watched Oddball's Bob Carlin to the finish, Saigon. It would do you do-gooders good to do so.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

IanC said:


> if peer (pal) review wasnt political to some extent then how do you explain Mann being able to get away with using the upsidedown Tiljander cores? why hasnt outside science come down hard on this and demanded a retraction?



I'm not sure how much you know about peer review, but it is a brutal and exacting process. It's well worth going to watch a dissertation defense to get an idea of how it works. (They are usually open to the public to help ensure transparency). 

How many PhDs do you hear about being plagiarised?

Maybe 1 in 10,000? Maybe 1 in 100,000?

Probably the same with poor science. In some fields it isn't always easy to find someone whose speciality area is so close to the topic of the PhD that they can analyse it adequately. Here in Finland we routinely bring in people from the UK or US to ensure the person is a real expert, but there can always be that 1 in 10,000 error. 

It's pretty weird to suggest that problems like that are commonplace.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> You're trying to me me responsible for what goes on in a foreign country, or 30 foreign countries, Saigon?



No, I am trying to make you realise that climate change can not really be a left wing conspiracy when most major conservative parties insist that it is not a left wing conspiracy. 

The politicization of climate sciences seems to be a US phenomena...not sure why that is, although the poster who mentioned the lobbyists earlier might have a point there.


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > if peer (pal) review wasnt political to some extent then how do you explain Mann being able to get away with using the upsidedown Tiljander cores? why hasnt outside science come down hard on this and demanded a retraction?
> ...


Wen the peer review is all based upon the original work (which, oh by the way, has been destroyed) of charlatans and frauds, then you don't have a popcorn fart.


----------



## dblack (May 13, 2012)

Climate science is political because it involves maintaining the commons. We do that through government, so solving the problem inevitably involves politics - people have different opinions on what the appropriate solution is. And. to the extent that some people are eager to 'find' evidence that supports their favored solution, the science itself becomes questionable and, unfortunately, subject to politically motivated campaigns.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.
> ...


Follow the money, follow the power.  

Every one of those organizations stands to lose LOTS of money and power by being honest.

To tie it to 'holocaust denial' is the acme of demagoguery.


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

Here are the  "peers" doing all the "review":





"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."





BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming. 
Phil Jones: Yes...





Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them (the papers of skeptic Steven McIntyre)  out (of the IPCC) somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.
> ...


Good exposure of your political/religious bias FOR AGW.

And 'conservative' parties in the Europe run at about the same level of liberalism as the Democrats in the US.  Your whole political spectrum is shifted much farther left than the US.

Get back to us when you start talking about small government and individual liberty.  Two nearly alien concepts in Europe.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)

Welcome to Realville assholes..................

You can post up 1,000 links about the "real science"........but in 2012..........nobody..........fucking ...........cares. None of that shit matters.........none of it. It is embraced only be those who have no ability to think on the margin.

Its like this..............put this problem solver question to a far left guy and its the ultimate brain teaser.


The far left guy has $200 left to his name. He needs food, but also wants that new iPhone that just came out. Far left guy will not be able to accept that you cant do both. Far left guy cant comprehend that in life, there are such things as necessary tradeoffs.

Thanksfully for the rest of us..........far left guys are fringe on the political spectrum, thus, all the hooting and hollering are never going to matter in the bigger picture. WHich is exactly why Crap And Tax went belly up. The majority on the public realizes that you cant have your cake and eat it too. Its that simple. Sure the public have some concerns.............maybe...............sometimes...........about climate change, but having the ability to think on the margin, they are not going to accept a standard of living that is mid-1850's!! They're just not. In fact, most say, "FUCK YOU!!!" to the mere prospect. What? Like people are going to say, *"Yeah..........maybe this global warming bites us in the ass in 50 years..........but fuck if Im having my eletric bill double because of it. Fuck if Im going to let the governmen dictate to me that I must put in a $60K solar roof when I might not even be alive when I'm in black ink!!! Fuck if Im letting the government have me close my fireplace permanently. Fuck if Im going to drive around in a little shitbox two seater death trap car just so the environmental radicals can feel less guilty!!!"*


Why do you think the most significant legiislation on green in the past 3 years was this light bulb thing? You stupid morons.........its because nobody, but nobody gives a crap or they'd be banging the fucking door of their legislator down demanding caps on carbon emmissions. They're not................in fact, its dead as a doornail and zero prospects for it to resurface. ( unless Alaska goes 70 degrees for a month in January and people are out waterskiing the lakes near Anchorage ).


Indeed it is political s0ns..............thats the way it works in America. Screw the phoney science and the mental cases who need to hit the reset button on the OCD stuff. Focus on something instead that mattters............and somthing able to be proved for that matter. Because speculation is gay in the real world!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Because climate "Science" is not science; it's an effort to shut down Western civilization.

That's the consistent theme throughout: we can't show you how it works, but we know for certain that you have to eliminate American's ability to generate power to combat it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Here are the  "peers" doing all the "review":
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and it's 100% awesome and accurate


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)

Here is something for the nutters to OCD on instead of this k00k obsession with global warming.............


Now *This* Is a Cell Phone: Using Radio Waves to Control Specific Genes in Mice | 80beats | Discover Magazine


C'mon.......make yourselves useful. Get obsessed about something that matters instead of wasting thousands of hours posting up the same BS links from 10 years ago.


Get to work............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)




----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

Peer review:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NaQxUEfxt0]Mr Johnson is Right - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters (May 13, 2012)

California Girl said:


> When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.



deluded little rich girl with a washed brain


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)

Yo Frank.............how much fun is it to kick the k00ks square in the balls? Of course, no skin off their nose..........fuckers are in their own little world.........some kind of benign autism. But to the few who stumble in here checking out the scene...........looking for a compass on this climate change stuff, we do the public humiliation thing rather well, would you say?


Like this Truthmatters idiot..........reads my last long post above and heads to the kitchen for another 1/2 dozen donuts!!! 50,000 posts..........holy shit...........might see her dwelling on one of those cable shows some day.


----------



## hjmick (May 13, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> big fat hunks of money is the only reason




Ah fuck me sideways, twice in one day...



TM is right.




Damn, I may need to log off.


----------



## Liability (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Why is climate science political?



Because it isn't science; it's science FICTION.

And the "proposals" to "address" the fictional AGW are -- in actuality -- barely disguised economic expressions of purely political philosophy.


----------



## Flopper (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...


Science becomes political when it challenges strongly held beliefs.  Before climate science researchers became concerned about global warming, the only interest politicians had, was the accuracy of the weather forecast for their next outdoor fund raiser.


----------



## Zander (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



It is political because "Climate Science" is to real science as Astrology is to Astronomy.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)

Zander said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...


----------



## Flopper (May 13, 2012)

It was inevitable that climate scientists would be attacked since their research indicated that we need to make major changes that effect every nation and particular the US because we're the largest economy in the world.

It's interesting that an Internet cottage industry of global warming deniers and defenders has developed,  each twisting the facts as needed to make their point.  What they pass off as real science is actually political science.


----------



## tigerbob (May 13, 2012)

Flopper said:


> It was inevitable that climate scientists would be attacked since their research indicated that we need to make major changes that effect every nation and particular the US because we're the largest economy in the world.
> 
> It's interesting that an Internet cottage industry of global warming deniers and defenders has developed,  each twisting the facts as needed to make their point.  What they pass off as real science is actually political science.



It's interesting that you choose to damn one side for doing what both sides habitually do.


----------



## Oddball (May 13, 2012)

An oldie but goodie, from the grooveyard....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## rdean (May 13, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans see ALL science as "political".  What do you expect from people who believe "education is for snobs"?
> ...



Not really.  You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.  Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism?  Boy, did she tear into doctors.  And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican.  Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either.  They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 13, 2012)

It's the Great CO2 Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster, Charlie Brown!


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *Why is climate science political? *
> ...






Which letter in IPCC stands for science?


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > See, this is the key point. The data "proving" Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming/It's man's fault dammit" is NOT accurate data. There are tons of problems with the theory... and that's what it is... a theory, that Mankind is the prime mover behind every change in climate. It flies against basic logic, and the mechanisms chose to be hyped as the methodology in which it happens can be shown to be flawed by 8th grade Earth Science data. Their tools and models have been shown to be either accidentally or deliberately corrupted to find pre-chosen results and essentially discredited. Even normally trustworthy tools have discovered to have 'slipped' or deliberately altered to get the results.
> ...






I voted in the last election so I played a role in putting Obama in office.

I did not appoint him and I cannot remove him.

This is the same role that all of humanity plays in Climate Change.


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.
> ...






To clarify this:  You are supporting your claim that this is not a political issue by citing its support by political parties?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Any links to credible sources? Didn't think so.


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > So, gullible Brits want to embrace economic ruin in order to  try and change the weather... So  what?
> ...






If everyone else is wrong, do I need to be wrong, too?  I should think they would be happy to watch the ol' USA stray down the wrong road again while they have the right answer.

How many of these countries have unilaterally imposed the Kyoto Accords?


----------



## saveliberty (May 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You mean the Accord they all break at will?


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It was inevitable that climate scientists would be attacked since their research indicated that we need to make major changes that effect every nation and particular the US because we're the largest economy in the world.
> ...





The difference is that one side wants to change the world and eliminate cheap, portable available energy and replace it with burning pig dung.

The other wants to wait and see what is really happening and not run around like Chicken Little.


----------



## code1211 (May 13, 2012)

rdean said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...






There's an easy way to end the debate.  Present the irrefutable proof.  there is no argument about gravity.

End the argument about AGW.  You know all of the scientists personally.  Present the best case.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 13, 2012)

code1211 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


Except in the mechanics of how it works, not what it does.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2012)

...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!

Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.


----------



## westwall (May 13, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > *Why is climate science political? *
> ...








I've never heard of a PhD "researcher".  What is her actual degree in?  Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist.  She is an expert at measurement and surveys.  What is your wife an expert in?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 13, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> ...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!
> 
> Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.



They are intentionally naive like the kid who smacks his little sister on the head and then says he doesn't know why she's crying.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> I've never heard of a PhD "researcher".  What is her actual degree in?  Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist.  She is an expert at measurement and surveys.  What is your wife an expert in?



You have never heard of people doing paid research?

Goodness...


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!
> ...



10 points for bluster - 0 for substance. 

Then feel free to step up and explain WHY conservative parties around the world disagree with you. 

Again - it is ONKY in the US and Australia that the issue is politicised - that we know. The question is WHY it is politicsed in the US.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> ...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!
> 
> Ive always found it fascinating that the far left can navigate the world in this perpetual state of naive.



This thread is about RIGHT WING positions on climate change, genius.


----------



## Saigon (May 13, 2012)

rdean said:


> Not really.  You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.  Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism?  Boy, did she tear into doctors.  And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican.  Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either.  They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".



Very good points....that is how it looks to me too. 

And the right wing reactions on this thread seem to be mainly about 'I don't want to know'.

Not one poster yet has explained why most conservative parties accept human involvement in climate change.


----------



## Flopper (May 14, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It was inevitable that climate scientists would be attacked since their research indicated that we need to make major changes that effect every nation and particular the US because we're the largest economy in the world.
> ...


It wasn't meant that way, but if the shoe fits....


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I've never heard of a PhD "researcher".  What is her actual degree in?  Mine is geology and my wife is a PhD Industrial Organizational Psychologist.  She is an expert at measurement and surveys.  What is your wife an expert in?
> ...







No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.

Either she has a PhD in some science, or you're a fibber.

So which is it?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > ...........dummy thinks there is no correlation with the science and politics!!!
> ...






I'm a lefty.  I am also however a real scientist, and I was once a true believer for many years.  'Till I actually looked at the lack of science that the whole fraud was based on.  then I really started studying it and now I'm very angry at the lies that have been fed to the people.

Guess what...the people are getting made too.  They don't like being lied to.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Not really.  You can't have a meaningful discussion about science with people who believe science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.  Remember Michelle Bachmann saying vaccines cause autism?  Boy, did she tear into doctors.  And we know what right wingers think of scientists, even while insisting that more than 6% of scientists are Republican.  Most right wingers don't even know much about the Bible either.  They just "don't know" and "don't want to know".
> ...







I tell you what.  You present some empirical data that supports your contention.  No computer models, just cold hard data.  Oh, it can't have been touched by Hansen or his ilk either.  They have been caught red handed altering the historical temperature record to perpetuate their fiction.

That's called academic fraud BTW.  How do you explain the constant academic fraud being perpetrated by the AGW supporters?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> How do you explain the constant academic fraud being perpetrated by the AGW supporters?



There is no "constant" fraud. It's just a myth. 

I use one site which lists 800+ academic papers on climate-related topics. 

Of those, I am not aware of a single one which has ever been accused of anything. 

Across the entire history of climate science (from respected sources), I think I have heard of three cases of what one might call poor science.


----------



## ThinkCritically (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data.



These two sentences are in contradiction to one another.....Science is a political issue if you believe that government should act upon scientific data.....


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.
> 
> Either she has a PhD in some science, or you're a fibber.
> 
> So which is it?



Dear God, that really is some desperate, desperate stuff, Westwall!!

My wife is a paid researcher. She is writing her PhD. When she has completed her PhD, she will continue to be a paid reseacher. 

I will accept an apology.


----------



## ThinkCritically (May 14, 2012)

We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct?   How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?  I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct?   How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?



I think it may be another 10 years before anyone can give you a 100% response to that question. 

But what people tend to forget is that with challenges like understanding HIV, or linking smoking to cancer, it is an evolving field. More info appears regularly, and as it does, our understanding deepens and changes. 

I've never understood people saying that some of the claims made 20 years ago about climate being inaccurate proves the field is a conspiracy - to me the fact that scientists are willing to admit error and critique each other shows the field is healthy and honest. 

But to answer your question in short - the reason is the level of CO2 in the atmopshere. We know that mankind produces large amounts of CO2, and we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is dramatically higher now than it was 50 years ago. We know that CO2 produced by nature seems to have been in balance, and most scientists conclude that rising levels of CO2 being released by man has, to coin a phrase, overloaded the system. 

There are a dozen websites which can explain this better than I can: try the UK Met service. 

Climate - Met Office


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, there's no such thing as a PhD in "research", you claimed she was a PhD researcher.
> ...









Ahhhh, you're a fibber!  You expect me to apologise to you when you told an untrue statement?  That's rich.  BTW you don't "write your PhD"  You might want to become more acquainted with the world of academia before you make a fool of yourself again.

And for the record ALL GRAD STUDENTS are paid researchers,  they just aren't paid much.

Now run along fibber.  You still havn't said what FIELD she is studying.  Landscape engineering?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct?   How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?
> ...








The MET office hasn't had a successful prediction in years.  Why on Earth would anyone listen to them?  BTW dear person, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.  It's a central axiom of science.  It's a shame that is all AGW "science" is based on.


----------



## ThinkCritically (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.  It's a central axiom of science.  It's a shame that is all AGW "science" is based on.



That was my next point.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> BTW dear person, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. .



No, of course not - my apology if I gave that impression. I rather thought was self-evident.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Um....what ARE you talking about?  What "fib" did I tell? What "untrue" statement do you see?

Seriously - I have absolutely no idea what you are ranting about here.

btw. Not all grad students receive funding or grants (at least not here). It's a very competitive field, and funding is often only for one year when it does come. There are not so many paid research positions here, but my wife is lucky to have one.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Your post number 10 in this very thread.  You see, when you fib a lot you lose track of what lie you said, and to whom you said it.

 "(My wife is a PhD researcher)"

That statement means (at least on the planet I live on) that your wife has a PhD in some science.  And that she is working as a researcher for some company or institution of higher learning (you see dear boy I've done both, as has my wife) I then asked you to tell us what specific scientific field she is studying.  

You then altered your original statement (after some prodding from me) to state that your wife was "writing" her PhD, (whatever the hell that means) and then expected an apology.

Here, on my planet that is called an untruth.  You acted like all the AGW supporters and tried to bluff your way out of it and STILL havn't answered my original question which was what SPECIFIC scientific field is your wife studying.  Just like the AGW "scientists" when asked to provide their raw data and original code so that other scientists can check their work.....which is an ESSENTIAL component of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

I suggest you look that up too.  It seems you have a great deal to learn before you rejoin the conversation, so get to work.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Westwall - 

My wife is a PhD researcher. 

By which I mean that she is writing her PhD (or her dissertation, if you prefer), and has funding for this year to conduct research as part of that process. Two weeks back she presented part of her dissertation at the Sorbonne. When she completes her PhD, she'll likely continue to do paid research if funding is available. 

You can apologise for the inexplicable accusations if you like, or you can believe that this is all some dark and evil conspiracy to make my wife look smart if you prefer. If you want to believe my wife is really a programmer at Nokia like everyone else in Finland - believe that.


----------



## Artevelde (May 14, 2012)

The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.



Possibly - but doing nothing while oceans rise to threaten the likes of London, LA and New York doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.

Every major business has a contingency plan for terror, sire, earthquake and flood. 

Good governance in relation to climate change would surely be to follow suit.


----------



## Artevelde (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.
> ...



I'm all for preparing for floods, earthquackes, droughts, etc.

But that is very different from basing fundamental policy decisions on some hysterical fad.


----------



## Decus (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Saigon lives in Europe. You may not realize that there are differences in higher education here. EU member countries are trying to harmonize the various systems through initiatives like the Bologna Accords but the differences between countries are still significant. 

In the US PhD studies usually require passing classes covering broader subject areas before the student moves on to choose their research topic and their actual research. Some countries in Europe tend to be more focused on the research. Prior to even being admitted for PhD studies, a student will have gone through a lengthy process of vetting their research topic. Only when supervisors believe that there are sufficient grounds and the research is possible, is the student admitted for studies. There is no reason to believe that Saigon's claim regarding his wife is not legitimate.


----------



## Douger (May 14, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.


And if you told your granny you could make a movie of yourself fucking a gurl in the ass and distribute it to 1 billion people in less than 5 minutes..........she'da had you committed.......which probably wouldn't have been all bad since you're apparently an idiot.


----------



## editec (May 14, 2012)

> *Why is climate science political? *


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Decus said:


> Saigon lives in Europe. You may not realize that there are differences in higher education here. EU member countries are trying to harmonize the various systems through initiatives like the Bologna Accords but the differences between countries are still significant.
> 
> In the US PhD studies usually require passing classes covering broader subject areas before the student moves on to choose their research topic and their actual research. Some countries in Europe tend to be more focused on the research. Prior to even being admitted for PhD studies, a student will have gone through a lengthy process of vetting their research topic. Only when supervisors believe that there are sufficient grounds and the research is possible, is the student admitted for studies. There is no reason to believe that Saigon's claim regarding his wife is not legitimate.



Thanks, Decus. 

It only occured to me afterwards that Westwall might not have realised that I am not in the US - and no doubt the situation with funding is quite different. PhD studies here are free (all education is), but PhD students typically apply for various grants or research positions within the faculty to have some income. 

As you say, PhD here is very specialised and focused, and is based almost entirely around the dissertation - hence my saying she is "writing her Phd". Other than attending some workshops and seminars, there is very little other work for her to do but write.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Artevelde said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Possibly - but doing nothing while oceans rise to threaten the likes of London, LA and New York doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
> ...



Indeed - but I don't really see institutions like the UK Royal Academy of Sciences or the US Society of Physics as being very keen on fads. 

I think sceptics need to be a little sensible about these things - the likes of the American Geophysical Society and the EU Federation of Geologists aren't a bunch of dropout hippies - they are amongst the most reputed and respected scientific voices on the planet. 

Disagree with them by all means, but pretending they are acting according to some kind of fashion is to suggest Justin Beiber may soon be named head of one of them.


----------



## tigerbob (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...





The question has already been answered more than once.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> The question has already been answered more than once.



Fair enough - give me a post # and I'll check it out. 

All I've seen on this thread is people saying it's a money-driven left wing conspiracy - apparently supported by conservatives.


----------



## tigerbob (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > The question has already been answered more than once.
> ...



I said it in my only other post in this thread.  Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago.  It's about money.  Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed.  Why?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > The question has already been answered more than once.
> ...


When Truthiepoo (a RABID leftwing kook) AGREES with conservatives in post #4 that it's the money, she kills your thread AND credibility in one shot.

You've got an extra 90 posts of bluster and denial (by the chicken littles like you) after that intermingled with repetition of the same easily observable cause.

I dunno what's creepier.  Her being on target on a subject... again... which is way to consistant for her, OR you ignoring it.  Then again, you're new.


----------



## tigerbob (May 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



It may be an issue of personal denial.  He's already given great weight to the fact that his wife is a professional researcher.  That neither proves nor disproves anything, but the idea that the money to fund any research often comes from groups with an agenda may be inconvenient.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...





Who cares s0n? We sceptics only care that the green side is losing big......... and the fact is, the stupids in other countries have always trusted their governments implicitly, happily embracing socialism. Thankfully we are alot more suspicious over here. Going green requires all sorts of getting on all fours for the government..............plus, people over here prefer to keep more of their own money instead of trusting the government to spend it ( see Solyndra ). A majority of Americans are also OK with there being a wealthy class ( approximately 65%) and are not enamoured with these Plato/Hobbes notions of utopian societies. Europeans have always been romanticized by that bullshit..........lmao........bunch of dolts. The whole continent slides deeper into the shitter on a daily basis!!


All the philosophy doesnt matter though...........nobody cares what conservatives elsewhere support or dont support. But its more than conservatives..........the public let Cap and Trade die on the vine and yawned through the whole thing. Reducing carbon emmissions isnt even on the radar in DC, and state RGGI's have lost in epic fashion over the past 2 to 3 years.
New Hampshire is a perfect example........as told by a green aliance member............

*Jim Cavan, of the 94-member Green Alliance business group, said: "[The bill] is more of a product of the toxic political times and furthering the knee-jerk reaction to watch our wallets."*


Here is a typical green dickhead being cavalier about people watching their wallets...........and Americans despise that sentiment. Americans hate people on the left telling them how to run their lives.


Nope.........bottom line is, its policital because people dont want to pay double for their electricity. And thank goodness for that............


Fuckk the k00ks.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

lOL......the last two Climate Summits have been laughable...........ePiC fAiLuReS!!!!! The Obama administartion didnt even send a representative.

Cancun Summit: The True Reasons for the


----------



## tigerbob (May 14, 2012)

Well, I guess that's one view, but please don't attempt to speak for all "skeptics".  It is not my only desire to see the green side "lose big".  It may well be that the environmental lobby are correct but at the moment there is too much smoke and too many mirrors from both sides.

Also, grouping 'Americans' and 'Europeans' as though to imply that all Americans think one way and all Europeans think another is just silly and undermines any point you're trying to make.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> I said it in my only other post in this thread.  Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago.  It's about money.  Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed.  Why?




Because I don't see how the UK Conservative Party is making money out of climate change. I would have thought it would have been potentially costing them money as they piss off the coal industry with their new policies. 

How do thre Conservative Party make money out of this?


----------



## Liability (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > I said it in my only other post in this thread.  Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago.  It's about money.  Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed.  Why?
> ...



By stopping the dishonest politically driven AGW Faithers from imposing their political agenda on society by way of their AGW fraudulent "science."  Preventing the AGW Faithers from foisting there fraud on society allows the economy to function.  And that's where actual human beings can make money.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Liability - 

I thank you and agree with your excellent post. 

This is the position of the UK Conservative government...

The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy


----------



## Artevelde (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You really overrate these kinds of scientific institutions. They are great at their specific little field, but generally lack the common sense to see the big picture.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

AGW is the Pet Rock of sciences.

Once the fad passes, people will wonder "What the fuck was I thinking?"


----------



## Oddball (May 14, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
> 
> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.​
> The statement about data storage is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the worlds surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.



The Dog Ate Global Warming - Patrick J. Michaels - National Review Online

Translation: The dog ate my homework.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Some people who fell for this fad:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?


----------



## Zander (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...


Here's one reason why......


----------



## Artevelde (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Some people who fell for this fad:
> 
> Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.
> 
> ...




Which one of these bodies is able to explain fully the enormous climatological changes Earth has experienced long before humankind arose?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Artevelde - 

All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change. 

This, I think we can assume they looked at the evidence before they made their statements. 

If climate change is a "fad" - why would 50 such august bodies throw their weight behind it?


----------



## Zander (May 14, 2012)

Maybe this fat, energy guzzling, hypocrite is part of the reason "Climate Astrology" is so political in the USA...????


----------



## Oddball (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde -
> 
> All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
> 
> ...



Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## freedombecki (May 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


After reading your link from National Review Online, which I hope everyone reads, I am left wondering whether the pro- "global warming" crowd didn't intentionally record data from data centers next to parking lots, which would bring a harvest in higher global temperatures than if temperature recordings would have been fairly distributed between locations that were random between global locations obtained by the roll of the longitudinal and latitudinal dice, if such a thing were possible.

And the reluctance of the "keepers of the keys" to the temperature data kingdom to share with critics leads me to think that's exactly what happened.

Thanks, Oddball. The National Review Article was quite illuminating to the issue of fairness in the scientific community being obfuscated by those seeking grants, and the cure for that is to somehow, abolish a need for funding to those who are truly interested in objective data, not their wallets. I'm not certain of a fair way to accomplish that, but maybe those scientists of an immaculate comprehensive fairness nudge could come up with something to prevent lies like this from pushing money around the globe to prove or disprove man's "influence" as being deleterious based on biased studies revolving around a sure shot to foundation moneys.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Some people who fell for this fad:
> 
> Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.
> 
> ...


This is science... not a popularity contest.  If popularity mattered to objective reality, that asshole jock in High School elected prom king would rule the universe with that trophy cheerleader girlfriend.

That said, do you believe in plate techtonics?  You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.

Or it was 'popular theory' for spontaneous generation.

Or how about Louis Pasteur being laughed at for his experiments on germ theory and pasturization?

How about the Earth being flat?  Or is it shaped like a burrito?

AGW is nothing more than magical religious thinking about the power of man against nature, mistaking pollution's consequences for climatological change, ignoring natural cycles long since accepted and attributing them to Man's activity.  Not to mention a healthy dose of mistaking corellary and causation.

So, I have with me right now a Tiger Repellant Rock.  I'll sell it to you for 10,000 Euro or whatever passes for cash in your neck of the woods.  There has never been a tiger within 10 miles of it, and never will be.  Ever in the billions of years it's been around.  Obviously it keeps Tigers away.  You want to buy it and have the piece of mind of never suffering a tiger attack?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde -
> 
> All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
> 
> ...








Speaking of fads...

To Time coverstories from the 1970's.  Are they deniers too?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

The concept of "ether" was popular too at one point and they had consensus too!

Homeopathy was popular and they had consensus!

Astrology still has consensus!

WooT!


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it. 



> That said, do you believe in plate techtonics? You may want to look at how long it took that theory to take hold AND who laughed it out of the auditorium before the science was no longer able to be ignored.



Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached. 

And looking at that list of bodies, that time is very much upon us.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The concept of "ether" was popular too at one point and they had consensus too!
> 
> Homeopathy was popular and they had consensus!
> 
> ...


Phrenology, perpetual motion machines and snake oil have always been problems in the scientific community.

Cold Fusion anyone?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Money and power seem to be good enough for 99% of mankind to be motivation.

Why suddenly is it not for these men and women?

Here, how about you tell us what the answers must be limited to before we try. What will you accept so we can cut through your bullshit... mmkay?  Your appeal to authority falacy ain't playing to well here for your credibility.


----------



## freedombecki (May 14, 2012)

Zander said:


> Maybe this fat, energy guzzling, hypocrite is part of the reason "Climate Astrology" is so political in the USA...????


Oh, the irony.


----------



## freedombecki (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because they need a good, sound kick in the balls, that's why, so they will never consider omitting data to get money, that's why.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> If I see anyone come up with a really strong argument as to why 50+ of the most respected scientific bodies in the world should be ignored, I will respond to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but Plate Techtonics did not use fraud to further it's cause. Nor was it backed by political groups and advocacy parties looking to gain from the findings of science.

The same way anti-smoking lobbies profited (particularly trial lawyers) from science that backed their claims, so does AGW.  There was no effort to 'enhance the spread' or 'increase the altitude'.  It was straight up non-political science.

You fool no one.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Big Fitz - 

Of course there are lobbies involved - backing solar, wind, tidal power projects. No question there.

There are also lobbies involved backing coal, nuclear and oil. 

I'd imagine the second category have deeper pockets. 

But interestingly enough, most research I see isn't funded by those groups. 

VTT (Finland's tech research unit) has mixed funding from a CONSERVATIVE government, and some funding from the private sector for product development. Given there is no solar and very little wind energy here, not much of that comes from renewables. And yet they research a lot to do with the impact of rising sea levels - which are clearly apparent here.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> You fool no one.



Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

I don't see sny scientific bodies at all in your corner.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You fool no one.
> ...



And can any of those societies point to a single experiment that show us how a 20PPM (.002% of atmosphere) increase in CO2 melts the glaciers?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Crusader Frank - 

Do you honestly - honestly - believe they couldn't?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader Frank -
> 
> Do you honestly - honestly - believe they couldn't?



Who couldn't what?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> My wife is a PhD researcher.
> 
> ...








I accuse her of nothing.  I accuse you (and proved it) of lying.  Now, for the fourth time, what is her field of study?


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.
> ...








Oftimes doing nothing is the best option.  Look at Californias experience with MTBE as an example.  MTBE was added to the gasoline to reduce air pollution.  The problem was the MTBE got into the water table and polluted thousands of water wells throughout the state and the western US.  

Those wells are poisoned now for the next 1000 years at minimum.  The "cure" was far worse than the illness.  Good science is based on observations and experience.  Environmentalists have a very poor track record of following that mantra.  Instead they are practitioners of "ready, fire, aim!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader Frank -
> 
> Do you honestly - honestly - believe they couldn't?



I believe it's a physical impossibility that a .002% change in total atmospheric composition by adding CO2 will cause temperature increase, extreme weather events including glacier melt and ocean acidification.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that mankind can fundamentally redirect the climate of the Earth in the very brief time-span of a couple of hundreds of years is such obvious hubris it is really rather ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the kind of hubris scientists are particularly prone to.
> ...



Stop wasting electron telling us about AGW, that's' the best solution


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Decus said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Yes, I realise that...I am still attempting to get him to tell us what scientific field she studies in.  However, his statement as it is read made the claim that she allready had her PhD.  That was clearly an error and he needs to make that plain.  She is a PhD CANDIDATE, just because she writes a dissertation doesn't gurantee a degree, she must defend it first.  

She would also still have to have obtained a Masters first.  And that would be in a specific field.  That is what I am interested in.  If he presents her as an expert I would like to know what she's an expert in.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz -
> 
> Of course there are lobbies involved - backing solar, wind, tidal power projects. No question there.
> 
> ...


You are as naive as you are dishonest.

There are lobbies for EVERY industry. It is nice that you note the lobbies that will gain both power and money if AGW is made law despite what the weather REALLY does.  It's also good to note you admit that Solar, Wind and Biomass will not cut it for Finland's energy needs.  A land that DESPERATELY needs reliable cheap energy to survive winters in any modern form.

I'll leave it to you and your 'Fudd' researcher wife to explain to me this.

The atmospheric composition of the planet contains 0.04% CO2. Of this, throughout our entire history, mankind has produced 0.006% of this content. 

How is it that an increase of a MINOR greenhouse gas as compared to the 4-8% total composition found in Water Vapor that does not even get outside of the margin of error for any method of sampling control the climate so completely? Also, how come we ignore the 99.994% of the rest of the CO2's impact on this?

Please, explain how this is so using uncorrupted sources (no NASA, No Michael Mann, No Hadley CRU, UN or EAU data)?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...


He's trying to look up a career that'd be credible for his fake wife.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon lives in Europe. You may not realize that there are differences in higher education here. EU member countries are trying to harmonize the various systems through initiatives like the Bologna Accords but the differences between countries are still significant.
> ...







That would be impossible.  I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> I accuse her of nothing.  I accuse you (and proved it) of lying.  Now, for the fourth time, what is her field of study?



You proved that I was lying, did you?

I must have missed that!

You have to laugh, don't you? 


My wife's PhD is in Philosophy by the way - nothing to do with sciences. She works mainly with Sartre, but also Judith Butler.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde -
> 
> All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
> 
> ...








Look up uniformitarianism.  It is a fundamental axiom of geology and has been adopted by all other physical sciences.  Now look up all those scientific bodies and look up where they get theri funding from.

Do you see a connection?

Back to uniformitarianism...the claim is that man has had a measurable impact on the climate of the world.  Show us the measurement.  Show us how anything we are seeing now hasn't occured before (here's a helpful hint, you will find nothing extreaordinary about this time as compared to any other) and you would have a point.  The problem is you can't.

Everything that is happening today has happened in the past (and in many cases far, far worse) so the only "evidence" that the AGW supporters have is correlation.  And as we all know, correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> You are as naive as you are dishonest.
> 
> There are lobbies for EVERY industry. It is nice that you note the lobbies that will gain both power and money if AGW is made law despite what the weather REALLY does.  It's also good to note you admit that Solar, Wind and Biomass will not cut it for Finland's energy needs.  A land that DESPERATELY needs reliable cheap energy to survive winters in any modern form.



Who said otherwise?

Of course there are lobbies for every industry...in the US and in Europe. 

And which industry would you say spent more on lobbying last year - wind, solar, cola, oil or nuclear?

And how might that effect the science conducted?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > I said it in my only other post in this thread. Editec said it again most recently about 4 posts ago. It's about money. Yes, it's a simple answer, and one that you appear to have heard and dismissed. Why?
> ...


Really? Look at how Obama planned to make money for his supporters here through the creation of the Carbon Credit Exchange (now thanfully failed)

The software for trading credits was owned by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (The Goverment Sponsored Agency for mortgages) and Franklin Raines (the former head of Freddie and Fannie) bought with US taxpayers money. Raines stood to make billions personally from this move.  But why did a mortgage company hold these patents?  It makes no sense and is a blatant abuse of government power to even allow this.

Al Gore and George Soros both personally lost on the collapsed when trillions of dollars were potentially able to be made if Cap and Trade had been passed in the US.   These two are just a couple of dozens of big lib millionaire/billionaires looking for corporatist handouts and control.

THOUSANDS of green start up companies, all very big green/leftwing supporters stood to make Millions to billions each by the CCX making it. That money would have quickly found itself into the pockets of politicians pledging to keep the money flowing through law as long as they were elected and kept in power.

THIS is why AGW is kept around. The power, money, corruption and outright human evil stands to gain so much and slide us into global ecofascism. 

A plethora of small 'conspiracies' of unenlightened self interest, or uncaring self interest as long as THEY are made into the new rulers and plutocrats.

Are you getting it now?


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> look up all those scientific bodies and look up where they get theri funding from.



Some from private sector - in the form of product development. 

Some from public sector - largely from conservative governments, but also here from EU research grants. 

And some from private donations and fund raising/marketing options. 

And of couse this proves that an evil conspiracy is afoot.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Crusader Frank -
> 
> Do you honestly - honestly - believe they couldn't?







They havn't yet.  They have never been able to produce a lab controlled experiment that showed it occuring.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> That would be impossible.  I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.



I was trying to think of a polite explanation for what otherwise seems to be the most baffling display of paranoia since the McCarthy era.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I accuse her of nothing.  I accuse you (and proved it) of lying.  Now, for the fourth time, what is her field of study?
> ...







ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person!  You really havn't a clue about academia do you?


----------



## Flopper (May 14, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct?   How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?  I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.


I'm not a scientist and don't understand most of the crap finding it's way to the Internet everyday.  I see climate science as long range forecasting based on weather trends.  There is no way to prove the prediction except to wait and see.  We can't prove man is causing temperatures to rise; we have some evidence and theories.  Since 2000, we had 9 of the warmest years on record.  We have certainly seen rising levels of CO2.  If the temperatures and CO2 levels continue to rise over the coming decades, then the probability that the predictions are correct will rise and more people will become more concerned.   

However, assume all the predictions are wrong and over the next hundred years we find good alternatives to fossil fuels.  We eliminate the major cause of air pollution.  We reduce groundwater pollution.  No more oil spills at sea.   No more more wars over oil. Not a bad outcome.  And if the climate scientist are right, we might just save the planet.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That would be impossible.  I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.
> ...







Paranoia?  I read what you write.  It is you who are having the problems not I.  You made a false claim.  I caught you making it.  Case closed.  No paranoia, just you writing a falsehood.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Yes, I realise that...I am still attempting to get him to tell us what scientific field she studies in.  However, his statement as it is read made the claim that she allready had her PhD.  That was clearly an error and he needs to make that plain.  She is a PhD CANDIDATE, just because she writes a dissertation doesn't gurantee a degree, she must defend it first.
> 
> She would also still have to have obtained a Masters first.  And that would be in a specific field.  That is what I am interested in.  If he presents her as an expert I would like to know what she's an expert in.



1) I never said she studied a science - you assumed it for some reason. 

2) Yes, of course she has a Masters - how would she be doing PhD without one?

3) She does not yet have her PhD - as I have said twice already. 

As I think will have been obvious to most people, when I said she was writing her PhD dissertation - that means she has not yet finished it. The present continuous tense "is writing" usually suggests an incomplete action, no? Perhaps grammar is a problem for you?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > look up all those scientific bodies and look up where they get theri funding from.
> ...


Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you?  Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.

Corporatism is very seductive and stealthy.


----------



## Liability (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



True.  But let's be a bit more fully accurate.  (Odd that I now make reference to Wiki, but there ya go):



> In the context of academic degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer solely to the field of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom".


 Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## peach174 (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon lives in Europe. You may not realize that there are differences in higher education here. EU member countries are trying to harmonize the various systems through initiatives like the Bologna Accords but the differences between countries are still significant.
> ...




Nothing is Free. 
Your Education is not free, it is funded by your people through taxes.
Your Science is funded by the Government. So is 36% in grants here in America.
When the question arises, that private funded science has come up with opposing views about climate change, it is immediately debunked and is not really seriously considered or discussed at all.


----------



## Oddball (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That would be impossible.  I can read quite clearly you are in Finland, My wife and I have attended Tommi Makinen's driving school in Puuppola and love the country.
> ...


Right...Paranoia....

Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group

The scandal deepens &#8211; IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers | Watts Up With That?

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Mike Fox: The IPCC Scandal: Well Deserved Self-Destruction - Nuclear Power Industry News - Nuclear Power Industry News - Nuclear Street - Nuclear Power Portal

Rainforest story latest IPCC scandal | CFACT

Another IPCC Scandal - Sea levels NOT rising

Google is your friend.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Flopper said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > We know that the earth has undergone many climate changes without man's disturbance throughout its existence, correct?   How do we know that today's climate change isn't a natural phenomenon?  I'm not denying the existence of carbon emissions, and the harm that they cause, but seriously how do we know if the current climate pattern isn't just the naturally occurring climate change that the earth undergoes.
> ...







Climatology is based on computer models.  Computer models that are soo poor they can't recreate the weather we had yesterday.  And this with PERFECT knowledge of all the variables involved.  You also state that we can't make long term predictions and know the outcome till many, many years in the future, this too is in error.  Joe Bastardi and Pires Corbyn have been making long term predictions for years and have a 80% success rate.  

So far the AGW supporters are batting  00.00.  They have NEVER had an accurate prediction.

I do agree with you that fossil fuels need to be replaced however.  But, and it's a big but, they need to be replaced by systems that are more efficient and cheaper, that way the net result is positive.  Currently all green techs actually produce more polution than the systems they are trying to replace.  That is simply stupid.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person!  You really havn't a clue about academia do you?



Welll...degrees in Philosophy are still in Philosophy. It is actually a topic - though I realise one you may not have heard of. 

I realise this is difficult if you have never heard of Sartre or Butler - but that is hardly my fault!!


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I realise that...I am still attempting to get him to tell us what scientific field she studies in.  However, his statement as it is read made the claim that she allready had her PhD.  That was clearly an error and he needs to make that plain.  She is a PhD CANDIDATE, just because she writes a dissertation doesn't gurantee a degree, she must defend it first.
> ...







I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD.  What did she obtain her Masters in?  Her Batchelors?  Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
My wifes is psychology, industrial organisational psychology, philosophy.

See how simple that is


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you?  Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.
> 
> Corporatism is very seductive and stealthy.



Agreed....it's not exactly difficult stuff this, is it?

I think we know why coal and oil pour so much money into climate change research. 

I think we also know why wind and solar do. 

I also know the first groups spend ten times what the second group do. 

Which would seem to make scepticism a right wing conspiracy.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Liability said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy.  I didn't feel the need to get that specific.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD.  What did she obtain her Masters in?  Her Batchelors?  Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
> My wifes is psychology, industrial organisational psychology, philosophy.
> 
> See how simple that is



No, I said she was a PhD researcher - by which I meant that she was doing research towards her PhD. 

If that wasn't clear - you could have asked. 

Her Master's was in Philosophy, too - which is still a topic.

btw. The word is 'Bachelors'...maybe you are lying about having one?

Come to think of it....it's also the first time I've heard of anyone switching from geology to philosophy to do a PhD....that wouldn't even be possible at most universities, where the PhD MUST be in a field in some way related to the Masters.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ALL PhD's are in philosophy you silly person!  You really havn't a clue about academia do you?
> ...







I prefer Rawls, Hume, Rousseau, Russell, and Spinoza, but to each their own..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Because liberals want to use "climate change" as an excuse to give the government even more power. And they don't care how much data they have to fake to do it.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy.  I didn't feel the need to get that specific.



Generous - and also very, very clearly wrong. 

I really struggle to believe that anyone with a tertiary education wouldn't know Philosophy was a subject all of its own - especially when I gave you the names of the philosophers.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm refering to your original post #10 where you claimed she was allready a PhD.  What did she obtain her Masters in?  Her Batchelors?  Mine is easy, geology, environmental geology, philosophy.
> ...







Yes I was typing fast and make errors when i do so.  The proper term for your wife would have been PhD candidate.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I've been very generous with terms for our dear boy.  I didn't feel the need to get that specific.
> ...







Because you never stated it.  My wifes father is a PhD philosopher from Loyolla.  So I am well acqauinted with the field.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Westwall - 

We don't use the word candidate with exactly that meaning here, because the Finnish translation means something slightly different in academia...we usually just use PhD student or Doctoral student. 

My sentence wasn't very clear, but I'd figured if anyone cared enough, they could ask, rather than dream up a conspiracy of lies!


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I NAMED the Philosophers!!!


----------



## California Girl (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.
> ...



'Conservative' in the US is not a political party. And, frankly, I couldn't give a rats ass what political parties think... they're a bunch of corrupt, amoral assclowns... left or right. If you are too stupid to think for yourself and need to have your opinions provided by a political party, you have my sympathy.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

California Girl said:


> 'Conservative' in the US is not a political party. And, frankly, I couldn't give a rats ass what political parties think... they're a bunch of corrupt, amoral assclowns... left or right. If you are too stupid to think for yourself and need to have your opinions provided by a political party, you have my sympathy.



So you don't vote for a political party?

Interesting.


----------



## westwall (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> We don't use the word candidate with exactly that meaning here, because the Finnish translation means something slightly different in academia...we usually just use PhD student or Doctoral student.
> 
> My sentence wasn't very clear, but I'd figured if anyone cared enough, they could ask, rather than dream up a conspiracy of lies!







Fair enough.  I did ask for clarification and you never answered the question (go aback and look at the thread and you'll see what I mean) it was you who changed the entire meaning of your statement.  Not me.  Go back and look.


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Westwall - 

Fair enough - I'm only kidding around with you here anyway. I knew what I meant when I posted it, anyway, and there was nothing dishonest intended. 

If I was going to lie I'd have said she was a Professor of Geophysics or something!


----------



## peach174 (May 14, 2012)

Do any of your scientists in Finland take into account that all of our planets in our solar system is undergoing a climate change?
Do they include that with Earth's climate change?


----------



## tigerbob (May 14, 2012)

Philosophy....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY]Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Philospher's Song - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Artevelde -
> 
> All 50 of the names bodies (and there are more on the list, I just took the first 50) has stated that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change.
> 
> ...



"that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change"

Excellent! How large a role? 
And if they think we should spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.1 degrees by 2080, then I part ways with them.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you wouldn't see Mussolini coming, would you? Not inquisitive at all as to WHY these groups have money to pay for this 'science' and support them.
> ...


ROFL... logical fallacy right there.

You're attributing only negative characteristics to the side of the discussion you oppose while ignoring your position's gleeful use of the same tactics you imply to condemn.

You still going to deny that AGW is driven by money and power or are you going to start equivocating now that you debunked your own position for us? Maybe your wife would be better at debating this issue and not make the same logical mistakes you are.

Also, where's my data on how Human generated CO2 is more important than all the rest, even though it cannot be truely detected because it is less than the margin of error?


----------



## Oddball (May 14, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Artevelde -
> ...


Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 14, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Because activist lie about the dramatic effects of client science to push their agenda. That does not make them left wing, just liars.

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is &#8220;Sheer Absurdity&#8221; Says Prominent German Meteorologist


----------



## peach174 (May 14, 2012)

peach174 said:


> Do any of your scientists in Finland take into account that all of our planets in our solar system is undergoing a climate change?
> Do they include that with Earth's climate change?



I'm not talking about the false things out there in the internet about the rest of the planets warming. Those things are not true.
What I'm talking about the change in storms and other things happening on the planets.

1.1.6 A series of Martian atmosphere transformations increasing its biosphere quality. In particularly, a cloudy growth in the equator area and an unusual growth of ozone concentration.

Update Note: In September 1997 the Mars Surveyor Satellite encountered an atmospheric density double that projected by NASA upon entering a Mars orbit. This greater density bent one of the solar array arms beyond the full and open stop. This combination of events has delayed the beginning of the scheduled photo mission for one year.

1.1.7 A first stage atmosphere generation on the Moon, where a growing natrium atmosphere is detected that reaches 9,000 km in height.

1.1.8 Significant physical, chemical and optical changes observed on Venus; an inversion of dark and light spots detected for the first time, and a sharp decrease of sulfur-containing gases in its atmosphere.

The following processes are taking place on the distant planets of our Solar System. But they are, essentially speaking, operationally driving the whole System.

Here are examples of these events:

1.1.1 A growth of dark spots on Pluto.

1.1.2 Reporting of auroras on Saturn.

1.1.3 Reporting of Uranus and Neptune polar shifts (They are magnetically conjugate planets), and the abrupt large-scale growth of Uranus' magnetosphere intensity.

1.1.4 A change in light intensity and light spot dynamics on Neptune.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

Who cares s0n? We sceptics only care that the green side is losing *big*......... and the fact is, the stupids in other countries have always trusted their governments implicitly, happily embracing socialism. Thankfully we are alot more suspicious over here. Going green requires all sorts of getting on all fours for the government..............plus, people over here prefer to keep more of their own money instead of trusting the government to spend it ( see Solyndra ). A majority of Americans are also OK with there being a wealthy class ( approximately 65%) and are not enamoured with these Plato/Hobbes notions of utopian societies. Europeans have always been romanticized by that bullshit..........lmao........bunch of dolts. The whole continent slides deeper into the shitter on a daily basis!!


All the philosophy doesnt matter though...........nobody cares what conservatives elsewhere support or dont support. But its more than conservatives..........the public let Cap and Trade die on the vine and yawned through the whole thing. Reducing carbon emmissions isnt even on the radar in DC, and state RGGI's have lost in epic fashion over the past 2 to 3 years.
New Hampshire is a perfect example........as told by a green aliance member............

*Jim Cavan, of the 94-member Green Alliance business group, said: "[The bill] is more of a product of the toxic political times and furthering the knee-jerk reaction to watch our wallets."*


Here is a typical green dickhead being cavalier about people watching their wallets...........and Americans despise that sentiment. Americans hate people on the left telling them how to run their lives.


Nope.........bottom line is, its policital because people dont want to pay double for their electricity. And thank goodness for that............


Fuckk the k00ks.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

Laugh my balls off............look at the recommendations by the IEA related to global warming..............

Heres a smidgen from the conference in late April.....................

*Due to the terrible urgency of the global warming crisis, Jones said, the 32 developed OECD member countries of the IEA must literally develop every known conceivable form and type of energy, now defined as clean. Even imaginary forms, everything. The list was so massive that some members of the audience dozed off, shaked themselves awake, and shook their heads at hearing the list was still being read out. The litany went on and on. It seemed endless, but it did end - only to be followed by the Second Option, also read out by Jones. This is using no energy at all, economizing it, conserving it, negawatts instead of megawatts, car sharing, taking a shower (not even a bath) with a friend or two friends, which footballers do, taking buses and trains, which footballers and prime ministers don't, insulating homes, installing smart meters, turning lights and heating off in offices at nights and weekends despite this being a challenge to civilization, building smart grids and super grids, changing the regular flashlight for a Donald Duck LED flashlight Made in China, doing without flashlights, buying a bicycle, not buying a third iPhone. And lots more: Jones surpassed himself on that score, he said that his experts had told him that energy saving was vastly easier and cheaper than developing any kind of new energy, clean or otherwise. *


http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34645.html


These assholes might just as well be standing stark naked in the middle of Siberia yelling, "FIRE!!". The k00ks think there should be no linkage between the science and the politics.



*Oooooooooooooooooooooooops*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

So there Siagon...............how about we send all of our neighbors over to your house and the houses of all the other nutjobs on this forum and you can all take group showers!!!

Oh.......and no baths for you assholes!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 14, 2012)

Just a word to people who might be coming into this forum trying to make some sense of this global warming debate.

Make no mistake.............many of the true believing environmentalists are obsessed with this global warming stuff. As in serious OCD stuff borne of some serious damage. These are the people who have bought into the scam hook, line and stinker..........people who find meaning in life via attaching who they are to a "cause". Sociologists have come to term this "The Politics of Reason". They are the followers...........the same kind of people who you will find have spent their lives chasing some kind of cause. They are miserable without this dynamic in their lives.


But they again, are the followers. Then there are the groups with a clear agenda...........and those with the agenda know there are hordes of the hopelessly duped out there waiting to be taken advantage of. Essentially, these people who set he green agenda are simply marketing a scam..........a scam many in the public have no clue about..


Read about The Green Agenda.............some very compelling links here.................


http://www.sovereignindependentuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/The-Green-Agenda2.pdf


----------



## Saigon (May 14, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



What kind of answer do you expect to a quesion like that?

Is the answer 15%, 1/2 or just 42?

No one can give you a precise figure, and no one precise figure would remain true when we are looking at systems which are in perpetual flux anyway. 

Think of a better question - one which would meet your own standards - and you might get better answers.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Again, here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.
> ...


The question is quite direct....

*Quantify.*

How much of the total atmospheric CO2 is directly and verifiably attributable to man's activities?...Exactly?

How much of an increase in the infinitesimally present atmospheric gas will account for what increase in temperature?...Exactly?

How do you positively account for all of the possible variables?...Exactly?

C'mon...Science.....


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Oddball - 

Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do. 

There's an overview here, or choose anyone of a hundred other sites:
RealClimate: How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

But really - this is such a red herring, isn't it?

At what point will you list the scientific bodies who do not believe human acitivity plays a part in climate change?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Don't tell me what question is better, deflectasaurus rex.

Answer direct questions with verifiable and quantifiable  evidence.

That's science.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Oddball - 

I think it is more of a red herring in this case, but the answer couldn't be much easier to find. 

This site says 5.53% of CO2 released is from human acivitity....that's fairly close to what I've seen on other sites. Feel free to use another figure if you prefer. 

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Asking for thr 4th time now - which scientific bodies do not believe human acitivity plays a role in climate change?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

No red herring.

You cannot put direct and independently verifiable numbers to your claims....No quantification.

You appeal to authority...A logical fallacy.

You lose.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Oddball -

Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose. 

And even though I have listed 50 scientific bodies from the around the world who back my position - and you have not 1 who backs your position, you think I lose. 

Jesus wept....


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

5% (assuming that is objectively verifiable) of .038% of the total -a statistical rounding error- is significant.

I linked to over 30,000 of legitimate scientists who disagree with your chosen cliques....You disregard them out of hand.

But there's no backing to my claim.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose.
> 
> ...








Jesus.  How appropriate.  Yet more confirmation that it really is all just a religion.


----------



## wirebender (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > You fool no one.
> ...



And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence.  What should that tell a thinking person?


----------



## wirebender (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached.



And professor Wood's experiment proving the hypothesis wrong dates to just a few weeks later in 1860 but I wager that you never heard about that.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose.
> 
> ...


Ummm. It has not been established at all. Nice try.

Try basing it off of the tons of CO2 released, versus how much CO2 is in the atmosphere by tonnage. It's more like 0.06% when you run the math. Math so simple even I can do it.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Again, here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:
> 
> I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:
> 
> ...


Another "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

If all of those organizations said that 2+2=22, it does not make it so... does it?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 15, 2012)

This thread clearly speaks to the age old phrase, 'There is a sucker born every day!!"


----------



## bripat9643 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do.
> 
> ...



That question is nothing but a ruse.  In the first place, it's a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority."  How many astronomers in the year 1500 believed that the Sun was the center of the solar system?  Answer: all of them.

In the second place, the leadership of "scientific bodies" are politicians more than scientists, and they are totally dependent on government for their status, income and authority.  One may as well ask how man Cardinals in the catholic church dispute the divinity of Christ.

Here is one more example of the dishonesty of the warmist cult.  They claim to believe in science, yet the reject all the fundamental precepts of science, two if which are logic and skepticism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*No one can give you a precise figure*

And yet we're expected to give up our freedoms, and trillions of dollars, to fix the unquantifiable problem.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> This thread clearly speaks to the age old phrase, 'There is a sucker born every day!!"


Amen PT Barnum.  There'd be a good avvie for you Skook.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


He hasn't said whether or not he'll buy my "Tiger Repellant Rock". I mean a tiger free life for $10k? Who wouldn't want that?

Or perhaps he doesn't believe it's a good investment of his money? Hmmmmmmmm...... 

Perhaps there's something to this?


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented. 

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


Come on gentlemen - if your case has so much science behind it - let's see the list of scientific organisations who agree with you.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world. 

It is not a difficult choice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.
> 
> Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:
> 
> ...



*Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change*

Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW.  Which he decried as a fraud.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change*
> 
> Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?



How much we spend - and what on - is a decision to be made by whatever politician you chose to vote for - and is ideally made on the basis of the best available scientific information.

Given most conservative parties agree with the positions listed here by those 50 scientific bodies - that should be possible.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

westwall said:


> I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW.  Which he decried as a fraud.



I'm aware of the case, and thought it made interesting reading when it came out. 

I admire his integrity in doing what he believed, and I welcomed the debate it created. 

I don't doubt he is not the only scientist to be a sceptic - but I think we all realise that is a miniscule minority amongst the wider scientific community.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Yes, a thinking person would look at the PROPAGANDA spewed out by these organisations, and their complete lack of evidence to support what they say.  Take a look at some of the real evidence on some of the sceptic sites and when you actually have a more balanced viewpoint feel free to come back.  Right now you are a one trick pony.

You really have to ask yourself if what those organisations are saying is so powerful why then are they reduced to falsifying what data they do have and trying to prevent any opposing views from being published.  That is a direct affront to the scientific method.

A supposedly "thinking person" would ask those questions.  On the other hand, a non thinker, blindly follows what his high priests tell him to believe.  Faith works that way.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Westwall - 

I think we all get it now. 

The American Society of Physics does not get physics. 

You get physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change*
> ...



What does your wife suggest we spend?


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Todd - 

Your posting is definitely at its best when you don't even go through the motions of discussing the topic.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is  left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?



Because they are aluminum hat wearing nutters.


...with nice websites.


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> * * * *
> 
> But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is  left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?



WTF does THAT bullshit even mean?

The "opposite" of saying that the CLAIM of MAN MADE global warming is a "left wing conspiracy" would be the claim that it's a *right* wing conspiracy.

So your contention is that, around the world except in the U.S., conservatives blame the false claim of AGW on a RIGHT wing conspiracy?


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Liability - 

Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy. 

However, around the world most conservative parties are stating that climate change is NOT a left wing conspiracy, and is, in fact, scientific fact. 

How do you explain this?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.

Is understanding the political class really that tough?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it. 

And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes. 

When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability -
> 
> Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy.
> 
> ...



First, that's not the same thing as what you wrote.  You said "opposite."

I merely noted how inaccurate you were.

Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."

Is there some global climate change?  Apparently.  Yes.

Is there ANY true proof or even particularly compelling scientific EVIDENCE that it is caused Anthropogenically?  No.

This is so for a variety of reasons.  One of the BIG tells is that we had ice ages and warmings BEFORE human kind ever lit so much as a whole lot of campfires.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.
> 
> Is understanding the political class really that tough?



Is understanding a lying fool that hard, Oddie? I fully understand you. Anti-science, and anti-sense. All opinion and no evidence or facts backing any of it.


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Because they're politicians who see a nice tax scam.
> ...


We understand you just fine, despite your lies and foolishness.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

In 2007 there were lot of melt ponds on Arctic sea ice and in 2011 there were even more

Exceptional melt pond occurrence in the years 2007 and 2011 on the Arctic sea ice revealed from MODIS satellite data &#8211; Rösel & Kaleschke (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Melt ponds contribute to the ice-albedo feedback as they reduce the surface albedo of sea ice, and hence accelerate the decay of Arctic sea ice. Here, we analyze the melt pond fraction, retrieved from the MODIS sensor for the years 2000&#8211;2011 to characterize the spatial and temporal evolution. A significant anomaly of the relative melt pond fraction at the beginning of the melt season in June 2007 is documented. This is followed by above-average values throughout the entire summer. In contrast, the increase of the relative melt pond fraction at the beginning of June 2011 is within average values, but from mid-June, relative melt pond fraction exhibits values up to two standard deviations above the mean values of 30 ± 1.2% which are even higher than in Summer 2007.&#8221;

Citation: Rösel, A., and L. Kaleschke (2012), Exceptional melt pond occurrence in the years 2007 and 2011 on the Arctic sea ice revealed from MODIS satellite data, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C05018, doi:10.1029/2011JC007869.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Liability said:


> Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."
> 
> .



Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

Signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century

Observed 21st century temperatures further constrain likely rates of future warming &#8211; Stott & Jones (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;We carry out a detection and attribution analysis of observed near-surface temperatures to 2010 and demonstrate that the signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century. As a result, we show that global warming is set to continue, with the second decade of the 21st century predicted to be very likely warmer than the first. Estimates of future warming rates consistent with observations of past climate change are now better constrained than they were a decade ago. The highest rates of warming previously consistent with past warming now appear to be unlikely.&#8221;

Citation: Peter A. Stott, Gareth S. Jones, Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.383.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

Yet another analysis suggests that greenhouse gases and aerosols controlled temperature after 1950

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium &#8211; van Hateren (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: &#8220;A climate response function is introduced that consists of six exponential (low-pass) filters with weights depending as a power law on their e-folding times. The response of this two-parameter function to the combined forcings of solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, and SO2-related aerosols is fitted simultaneously to reconstructed temperatures of the past millennium, the response to solar cycles, the response to the 1991 Pinatubo volcanic eruption, and the modern 1850&#8211;2010 temperature trend. Assuming strong long-term modulation of solar irradiance, the quite adequate fit produces a climate response function with a millennium-scale response to doubled CO2 concentration of 2.0 ± 0.3 °C (mean ± standard error), of which about 50 % is realized with e-folding times of 0.5 and 2 years, about 30 % with e-folding times of 8 and 32 years, and about 20 % with e-folding times of 128 and 512 years. The transient climate response (response after 70 years of 1 % yearly rise of CO2 concentration) is 1.5 ± 0.2 °C. The temperature rise from 1820 to 1950 can be attributed for about 70 % to increased solar irradiance, while the temperature changes after 1950 are almost completely produced by the interplay of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. The SO2-related forcing produces a small temperature drop in the years 1950&#8211;1970 and an inflection of the temperature curve around the year 2000. Fitting with a tenfold smaller modulation of solar irradiance produces a less adequate fit with millennium-scale and transient climate responses of 2.5 ± 0.4 and 1.9 ± 0.3 °C, respectively.&#8221;

Citation: J. H. van Hateren, Climate Dynamics, 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1375-3.


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, few folks who understand the 'science' of AGW accept it as "fact."
> ...




Even some scientists can get bamboozled.

But there is no rigorous scientific proof of the A part of AGW.

What they endorse is a *political* statement and a statement of BELIEF and supposition.   They are entitled to have those silly opinions.  But as scientists, they are obliged to prove it.  They haven't.  Science is not defined by "consensus."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

New derivations for atmospheric lifetimes of some GHG&#8217;s

Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry &#8211; Prather et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Knowledge of the atmospheric chemistry of reactive greenhouse gases is needed to accurately quantify the relationship between human activities and climate, and to incorporate uncertainty in our projections of greenhouse gas abundances. We present a method for estimating the fraction of greenhouse gases attributable to human activities, both currently and for future scenarios. Key variables used to calculate the atmospheric chemistry and budgets of major non-CO2 greenhouse gases are codified along with their uncertainties, and then used to project budgets and abundances under the new climate-change scenarios. This new approach uses our knowledge of changing abundances and lifetimes to estimate current total anthropogenic emissions, independently and possibly more accurately than inventory-based scenarios. We derive a present-day atmospheric lifetime for methane (CH4) of 9.1 ± 0.9 y and anthropogenic emissions of 352 ± 45 Tg/y (64% of total emissions). For N2O, corresponding values are 131 ± 10 y and 6.5 ± 1.3 TgN/y (41% of total); and for HFC-134a, the lifetime is 14.2 ± 1.5 y.&#8221;

Citation: Prather, M. J., C. D. Holmes, and J. Hsu (2012), Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09803, doi:10.1029/2012GL051440.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

Liability said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Fucking bullshit, fellow. The proof was presented by Tyndall in 1859.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

Expected ocean acidification from human actions seems to be unprecedented in the geologic past

History of Seawater Carbonate Chemistry, Atmospheric CO2, and Ocean Acidification &#8211; Zeebe (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abstract: &#8220;Humans are continuing to add vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities. A large fraction of the CO2 is taken up by the oceans in a process that lowers ocean pH and carbonate mineral saturation state. This effect has potentially serious consequences for marine life, which are, however, difficult to predict. One approach to address the issue is to study the geologic record, which may provide clues about what the future holds for ocean chemistry and marine organisms. This article reviews basic controls on ocean carbonate chemistry on different timescales and examines past ocean chemistry changes and ocean acidification events during various geologic eras. The results allow evaluation of the current anthropogenic perturbation in the context of Earth&#8217;s history. It appears that the ocean acidification event that humans are expected to cause is unprecedented in the geologic past, for which sufficiently well-preserved records are available.&#8221;

Citation: Richard E. Zeebe, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 141-165 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105521.


----------



## Saigon (May 15, 2012)

Liability said:


> Even some scientists can get bamboozled.



It is lucky that you know so much more about science than all of these silly experts.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

AGW Observer

End-Permian mass extinction may be important ancient analog for 21st century oceans

End-Permian Mass Extinction in the Oceans: An Ancient Analog for the Twenty-First Century? &#8211; Payne & Clapham (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (~252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth&#8217;s largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans.&#8221;

Citation: Jonathan L. Payne and Matthew E. Clapham, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40: 89-111 (Volume publication date May 2012), DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105329.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2012)

Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.


Here's a fact: Nobody can quantify ho much CO2 is natural and how much is anthropologically generated...And all the lists of scientific societies and politicians who buy into the hoax can't change this fact.


----------



## saveliberty (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.



This has already been discussed a hundred times here.  Everyone knows the peer group has carefully stacked the deck at the board level to stifle any opposition.  Not very much like scientists if you fear challenges to your data, methods and results.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.
> 
> Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:
> 
> ...


We've moved on to the "Advertising theory" of debate.  Say the same thing over and over again till the other party believes it is true because of repetition.

You going to answer ANY of my grade school debunking of the findings of these Fifty rubes and charlatans who have much money and power to gain by this being 'proven'.

You know, this is just like the Catholic Church dealing with the theory that the Sun orbits around the Earth.  All the 'approved' authorites said it is not so and anyone who dare say different must be forced to recant... and that will make it so.

Saigon, your argument is dead.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Link to their 'evidence'? Just like when Cold Fusion was touted in the early 1990's, they had to let the REST of the scientific community go over their numbers and repeat the process. Problems keep occuring when the numbers they got from the same data don't match honest research or the models used by the hucksters at say East Anglia University were found to be DELIBERATLY perverted to get a desired result... and then these snake oil salesmen go on to destroy evidence that might have revealed the truth faster.


Pirrelli's Hair Growth Elixir anyone? Stimulating isn't it? Looks like piss. Piss mixed with ink.


----------



## saveliberty (May 15, 2012)

That why you Faithers dropped the term global warming?  Ever wonder why the public has a trend toward disbelieving your theories?  Can you follow the money and see how the science is corrupt?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you conveniently ignore the Nobel Prize winning physicist who RESIGNED from that organisation because of their position on AGW.  Which he decried as a fraud.
> ...







You have the numbers reveresed my friend.  The MAJORITY of scientists think it is at best unsubstantiated and at worst widespread, organised fraud.  The meme of 97% of all scientists believing in AGW is fraudulent.

That particular bit of propaganda was derived from a survey sent to 3000 scientists.  The folks running the survey eliminated all but the climatologists who responded.  That left 79 scientists.  Of that total only 74 agreed with the biased question.  So even with absolute control over who was able to respond to the survey they weren't able to get 100% support.

And that's what you call scientific support.

You need to get out more.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I think we all get it now.
> 
> ...








Yes, I do.  It is one of the fundamental building blocks of a geology degree.  Along with chemistry and higher mathematics.  You see dear person, the climatologists claim that only climatologists can understand what they do (hence my continual referral to the high priest relating the WORD OF GOD to the peasants) but what's funny is I can teach any graduate level class they have in a program.

On the other hand, there is not a single graduate level class that a PhD climatologist can teach in any geology program I know of.  They would be so far out of their depth as to be ludicrous.  A 2nd year geology student would have to teach them what was what.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it.
> 
> And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes.
> 
> When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.








And for all of my senility i can run rings around a fraud like you!


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TAWkx8o6w&feature=related]The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 15, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> That why you Faithers dropped the term global warming?  Ever wonder why the public has a trend toward disbelieving your theories?  Can you follow the money and see how the science is corrupt?



What do you mean "dropped it" ?

global warming - Google Scholar


----------



## wirebender (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.



I doubt that tripe was worthy of any response at all in that it suggested that the conditions of the permian were analogous to the present.  During the time of the permian extinction, vulcanism was at a state so much greater than the present that to make a comparison is just stupid.


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

Hide the decline under the hockey puck!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Hide the decline under the hockey puck!



I have Peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate and statistically significant too


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Can you imagine Michelson Morley altering their data to prove that there was an ether? 

Thats how big a fraud AGW is. When the data fails to back their theory, they alter the data


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Hide the decline under the hockey puck!
> ...



I have peer reviewed both the Oddball post and the peer review by brother CrusaderFrank and it is hereby certified that both are  accurate and this is stated with a statistical significance level of confidence over 99%.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2012)

Liability said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



We have consensus!

science = settled!

Government funding to follow


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Your posting is definitely at its best when you don't even go through the motions of discussing the topic.



I thought your wife was an expert?


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Bullshit indeed.  There was never any "proof."  Still isn't.  And you'd know that if you could ever be honest.


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do.
> 
> ...






You are making a leap of faith here.

The question is not whether or not CO2 is increasing.  The question is how much of the increase in the temperature of the planet, which has been decreasing for the record, is directly and irrefutably attributable to the activities of man?

That is the question that needs to be answered and before that answer can be made, the proof of the actual connection between the rise of CO2 and the rise and fall of temperature needs to be demonstrated.

Proving that CO2 both increases and decreases temperature should be an interesting comment from you.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Hide the decline under the hockey puck!
> ...









Don Rickles gives this peer review his 'hockey puck seal of what the hell's your problem'.

And who wouldn't know more about warmth than Mr. Warmth?


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (May 15, 2012)

Didn't Nazis say that the science was settled on Jews and blacks being an inferior race?


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> I think it is more of a red herring in this case, but the answer couldn't be much easier to find.
> 
> ...






So we know that 5% of the air is GHG's.  Of the GHG's, about 3 to 4% is CO2.  Of that sliver, 5.53% is Anthropogenic. 

So your thesis is that 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere is the prime driver of climate change and that if we change our ways, we will return to the ideal climate of 150 years ago.

We really need circus music for this kind of logic.


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.
> 
> Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:
> 
> ...





You ask for science to refute opinion?

Interesting gambit.


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






The theory you assert demands that we accept that the warming from the dawn of the Industrial revolution is caused by the increase of CO2 in the air.

What caused the warming between 1600 and 1800 which by some proxies was more pronounced?

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change*
> ...





How many governments of Europe have enacted the Kyoto Accords?


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability -
> 
> Many posters have claimed that climate change science is a left wing conspracy.
> 
> ...






How many governments around the world have enacted the Kyoto Accords?


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Most of these nutters here cannot explain anything that has to do with real science. Some, like ol' Bent, are fruitloops with their own version of reality from some alternate universe. Others, like Code, have an agenda, and know and understand the science, but are amoral enough to ignore it.
> 
> And some are just a bit senile, like Walleyes.
> 
> When I started posting on this board, I posted as if I were addressing peers. However, as I found the conversation dominated by a few that used only invectutive and lies in discussion, I found it best to reply in terms that they could understand. The same terms I used for communication when I worked in sawmills.





I started out as a proponent of AGW and was converted because there is not the evidence to support that it is happening.

You have failed to present proof that would convince otherwise.

This is not agenda driven but is, rather, an unbiased view of the real world.

You should try to adopt that view.


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> AGW Observer
> 
> Signal of human influence on climate has strengthened over the first decade of the 21st century
> 
> ...





And the presentation of that accurate thirty year prediction of climate is to be posted when?


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






And the prediction presented by Hansen was wrong.

Why do you continue to present the proof of the mathematical precision when what is needed is the evidence of what is happening in the REAL world.

Show me where the proof is that CO2 is the prime driver of Climate and I'll see it.

I can't see something that isn't there.


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yes.  Take more from the evil Satan.  THAT will work.

I endorse the brilliance of social engineering of the entire world by means of fake science.


----------



## code1211 (May 15, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.
> ...





Regarding the permian, we know the temperature was already high when it started and that it shot up like a rocket.

Why did it come back down?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

code1211 said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



For exactly the same reason that it will come back down, very slowly, measured in tens of milenia, when we stop putting GHGs in the atmosphere. Chemical weathering of rocks, and removal of CO2 in the ocean by the single celled animals and plants. However, in the Triassic, after the P-T extinction event, it took millions of years for the ocean life to come back to where it had been. 

There are some chapters in this book that describe what we know concerning the events before, during, and after the P-T extinction event.

Part II: Now


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.

And we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact, the predictions of the people like Dr. Hansen, have been far to conservative. Not nearly alarmist enough. The Arctic Ice is now where the predictions said it would be in 2050. The Storms of our Grandchildren are already occuring. Given that at the very end of a double La Nina, the global temperature for the month of April was higher than any temperature prior to 1998, and the bottom of the average for this downturn is higher than the high point for any high point in the averages prior to 1998, one can only wonder what the high point will be in the next El Nino.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

This thread effectively stopped being a debate after post #'s 175 - #178 on page 12. Those posts represent absolute truths from a place called Realville, USA. Everything after is static............clutter perpetuated by folks who simply cannot accept that these is actually linkage between politics and the "real science".  As I have said repeatedly in this forum for over two years now...........in 2012, nobody cares about the science anymore. If we are to assume, the "real science" is suppossed to compell the people who make public policy to embrace radical reductions in greenhouse gases via schemes like Cap and Trade........then the folks who embrace the "real science" are losing and losing huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of the hardline environmental radicals will stretch any thread out 1,000 pages if they have to so they can get the last word in edgewise and hope that is the lesson the reader takes from the whole thread. These people are experts at distraction and throwing volumes of drivel at any subject. Interested parties need to be aware...........


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.
> ...



What a dumb fuck you are to state such a thing. Prior to the industrial revolution, the CO2 was about 280 ppm for thousands of years. Now it is at 395 ppm. Did you ever take a science class in high school?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now these are articles from various peer reviewed sources. Perhaps some of you sceptics would be so kind as to post articles that show the error in these articles? From peer reviewed sources, of course.
> ...



Oh sure, all the scientists from all the differant nations and political systems in the world are in on one big conspriracy to fool poor little you. Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.

What a damned fool you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



Guess what? I know quite a number of Phd Geologists that would blow you right out of the water with your idiotic pronouncements, Walleyes. 

Both the American Geophyisical Union and the Geological Society of America unequivocally state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. Since you claim to be a member of the former, when are you going to present your papers disproving AGW? I would like to know, so I can be present.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................

Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.

Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue) &#8212; MasterResource


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> This thread effectively stopped being a debate after post #'s 175 - #178 on page 12. Those posts represent absolute truths from a place called Realville, USA. Everything after is static............clutter perpetuated by folks who simply cannot accept that these is actually linkage between politics and the "real science".  As I have said repeatedly in this forum for over two years now...........in 2012, nobody cares about the science anymore. If we are to assume, the "real science" is suppossed to compell the people who make public policy to embrace radical reductions in greenhouse gases via schemes like Cap and Trade........then the folks who embrace the "real science" are losing and losing huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Many of the hardline environmental radicals will stretch any thread out 1,000 pages if they have to so they can get the last word in edgewise and hope that is the lesson the reader takes from the whole thread. These people are experts at distraction and throwing volumes of drivel at any subject. Interested parties need to be aware...........



Steve, the people at NOAA are doing there absolute best to learn more about the forces of weather, because as the weather becomes more active due to the increased energy in the atmosphere, earlier and more effective warnings are needed. Ask the people in Joplin, Missouri about that need.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................
> 
> Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.
> 
> Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue)  MasterResource



Interesting. A free market energy blog. A second winter of a double La Nina, and the US really had no winter. Just a few storms. But the issue is exagerated. Well, we will see about that this summer, and when the next inevitable El Nino occurs.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................
> 
> Environmentalists re in full retreat and in the process of trying to rebrand the hype. Why? Because in recent years, efforts to scare the shit out of the public have fallen flat on its face.
> 
> Read it here..........The Rebranding of Global Warming (Demoting an exaggerated issue)  MasterResource



Oddly enough, I think that these people will be shut down in the not too distant future. And it will have absolutely nothing to do with what environmentalists think or feel about them. 

Physical Review C - Cold fusion reaction of <sup>58</sup>Fe + <sup>208</sup>Pb analyzed by a generalized model of fusion by diffusion

http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/11682-the-peak-oil-crisis-the-quantum-fusion-hypothesis.html


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................
> ...






distraction Ray............and you know it too!!


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...






That's not an answer to what i asked.  I asked why the temperature shot up so fast AND why it dropped at the same break neck pace.  

If the Climate is driven by GHG's and the GHG's cause the temperature to rise, why does temperature drop when the GHG's are at their highest?

You say there is a Cause-effect relation here and that GHG's are the prime driver of climate and yet the evidence does not support your assertion.

In the Permian, the temperature starts out about 14 degrees warmer than today then rises to about 16 degrees warmer than today.  The temperature then dropped back down to 14 degrees warmer than today only to rise again over the course of millions of years to the +16 degrees over the level of today.

The pretty obvious nugget in all of this is that we are 16 degrees cooler today than at that time and there wasn't an Industrial Revolution in sight when it was that warm.

You assert that the temperature rose as a result of the GHG's.  You have further asserted in previous posts that as the temperatures rise as an effect of GHG's, feed back effects release additional GHG's that add to the effect of rising temperatures.

The feedbacks would have continued if your premise is correct but evidence suggests that the spike of temperature did not persist.  Why not?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## Oddball (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Yup.....I was paying particular attention during the part where we were taught that correlation doesn't equal causation.


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.
> 
> And we are already seeing the effects of the increase in the heat in the atmosphere and the ocean. In fact, the predictions of the people like Dr. Hansen, have been far to conservative. Not nearly alarmist enough. The Arctic Ice is now where the predictions said it would be in 2050. The Storms of our Grandchildren are already occuring. Given that at the very end of a double La Nina, the global temperature for the month of April was higher than any temperature prior to 1998, and the bottom of the average for this downturn is higher than the high point for any high point in the averages prior to 1998, one can only wonder what the high point will be in the next El Nino.
> 
> UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.





You still don't seem to grasp the concept that it is cooling from 2001 to now.  Cooling means cooler than it was at a specified point in time.  A comparison of temperatures over time.

Here's a power point that might help.

In terms of geologic time, out instrumental record is just about equal to nothing.  That said, the warming of 30 years or 10 years are equally specious to hold up as examples.  The fact remains, though, that the most recent decade has cooed in real-world actual temperatures.  That is, until they are revised upward by the Hockey Team.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/Steffen-...ce - March 2011- QO commentary - 5z (NXP).ppt


<snip>
SLIDE 21  Global surface temperature anomalies for 2001-2011 as recorded by the Hadley Centre. 

Note that global temperature has declined slightly over the last ten years, at a rate of -0.4o C/century by ordinary least squares analysis (blue line, OLS) or -0.06o C/century if temperature is corrected for ENSO variations (gold line; MEI = Multivariate ENSO Index-corrected). In comparison, IPCCs GCM models project a warming (red line) at a rate of +2.0o C/century.

The HadCRUT3 dataset uses a 1961-1990 baseline for temperature anomaly calculation. As plotted here, the data has been adjusted to a 1980-1999 average temperature baseline.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The importance of this graph is not, per se, that it can be used to make the statement that temperature has cooled over the last 10 years. Though that statement is true, the criticism of it that 10 years is far too short a time over which to observe climate change is (in conventional weather/climate terms) also true. But beware then the critic who goes on to say that of course, if you look at temperature since 1979, it has undeniably warmed. Again, a true statement, and, again, 32 years is far too short a period to be of climatic significance - representing, as it does, just one climate data point. 

Instead, the importance of the data shown in this slide is that, combined with our knowledge of increasing carbon dioxide levels, it comprises a test of the hypothesis that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Given that carbon dioxide levels increased from 371 ppm in 2001 to ~390 ppm in 2011, an increase of ~5%, the hypothesis is clearly invalidated by this test. Equally, the test also invalidates the GCM models used by the IPCC of having predictive, as opposed to heuristic, value. 

Graphic: Liljegren, Lucia, 2011 (Feb. 19). HadCrut January Anomaly: 0.194C. The Blackboard. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/hadcrut-january-anomaly-0-194c/.
<snip>


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





The temperatures during this interglacial were warmest about 8000 years ago and have been decreasing as a general trend ever since.

During this whole interglacial, we have vacillated within about a 2 degree range of temperature and are currently dead in the middle of that range.  When we are on the cool end of the range, we find global famine, pestilence and plague.  On the warm end, we find times of plenty, the advance of civilization and prosperity.

What's my point?

8000 years ago pre-dates the Industrial Revolution.  Why was it so warm back then?

If it does warm into the levels of comfort for us hairless apes, what's the problem?

As a side note regarding Interglacials in general, Interglacials always end when CO2 is at the peak of the atmospheric concentration during that interglacial.  If CO2 is the prime driver of climate, how can this happen?

If something else is dictating the direction of climate, how can CO2 be called the "Prime Driver" of our climate?


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................
> ...





Haven't you warned in the past to recognize the difference between weather and climate?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 16, 2012)

The only thing consitant about the chicken littles is their inconsistancy.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Since when does correlation equal causation?  And you claim to have attended college.  What a farce.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







I doubt that you know any geologists at all.  Furthermore, it's your theory, YOU PROVE it.  That's the way science works dear boy.  I contend that this is all natural.  You claim it's not.  Present evidence and support your theory.  Empirical data only, computer models don't count.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > This is from RealClearEnergy yesterday................
> ...









Oddly enough, yet another Hansen prediction is proven false.  Oh when oh when will he ever get one right?


"Climate alarmist James Hansen has long predicted the catastrophic tipping point of global temperatures from human CO2 emissions. His predictions include the seas will soon be boiling and a significant increase of extreme weather events, due to the excessive warming of the tropical atmosphere.

The excessive warming of the atmosphere over the Tropics is referred to as the AGW 'hotspot' and is the key signature of anthropogenic (by CO2 greenhouse gas) global warming.

Actual temperature measurements of the tropical atmosphere, as shown above, clearly indicate that the catastrophic 'hotspot' does not exist. Additionally, empirical evidence has the tropical atmosphere cooling over the last 15 years, at a -1.2 degree rate by year 2100, which is exact opposite predicted by IPCC climate models and the "experts," such as James Hansen."

C3: Connect The Dots: Global Warming Predicted Hotspot Over Tropics Is Non-Existent Latest Data Confirm


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

By the way Ray........you're way behind in the science in other energy area's................ever hear of LENR?

http://cryptogon.com/?p=29111

Free energy research............we wont know about it though for a long time. Why? Politics!!!


http://cryptogon.com/?p=29111



There will be a day when people look back upon the early 2000's and laugh about some of the suggestions for energy, like solar and wind. They'll be punch lines in comedy routines years from now. 50 years from now, the science then will look upon the science now as the science now looks back upon the science 100 years ago. Which is why this business of wrecking economies trying to put square pegs in round holes ( wind and solar) is so outlandish as not to be believed.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh sure, all the scientists from all the differant nations and political systems in the world are in on one big conspriracy to fool poor little you. Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.
> 
> What a damned fool you are.




Not all the scientists in the world are on the Review boards of climate journals.  We're talking about a small coterie of pals whose shenanigans were exposed in the Climategate emails.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000



Why are warm periods called climatic optimums?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



And a 4th grade education would tell you that Carbon in the atmosphere warsm teh earth.
If its not human caused activities such as emitting CO2 of which is proven to warm the earth what is warming the earth?
Could it be an increase in energy coming from the sun? Nope because there has been a decrease in that.
Could it be a decrease in dust levels that cool the earth? Nope because there has been an increase in those.
Could it be a decrease in volcano eruptions? Nope because there has been an increase in those.
So plz come up with a response that doesn't make you look like a retard


----------



## Oddball (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> And a 4th grade education would tell you that Carbon in the atmospher warsm teh earth


It would also have taught you to spell three, four and five-letter words.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000
> ...



Why are you ugly?


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000







Amazing that a supposedly thinking person would believe such nonsense.  Let's review shall we?  In 1915 the North American continent had around 1,500 weather stations.  All through the intervening decades they were added to till there were over 6,500 weather stations.  They kept a very accurate record of the temperatures for the most part.  Then in the 1980's and '90's something changed.  No longer were rural weather stations being read, instead Hansen and Co. concentrated on weather stations in urban areas exclusively.  Now, NOAA uses only around 1,500 of the available weather stations and none in rural areas.  

I wonder why that is?  Could it possibly be to aid their fiction of ever increasing temperatures?  Nahhh, it couldn't be that simple could it?  And how about that proclamation.  They stated that the temperature was hundredths of a degree warmer than back in the 1930's.  Hundredths of a degree!  Care to show me a thermometer that is capable of reading that accurately.

And you fools just lap that crap up.  And you claim to be a thinking person.  Your beliefs and actions tell us otherwise.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Prove it schmuck.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...







Why do you suck off goats?  I thought bestiality was frowned upon.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000
> ...



Jesus amazing how you think 1915 was 20 years ago. Perhaps that's the problem is that you are so stupid you think as if the year was 1915, meaning you still think ciggarets are good for you.
Furthermore dumbass a change in temperature at one recording station has no reflection ol another polling state and there is also sate-light/ice core data.
I wonder why it is that every organization that records temperate/whether related data, every scientific organization every climatologist and every scientists agree with me and not you.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
Global Volcanism Program | Frequently Asked Questions | Has volcanic activity been increasing?
Earth is twice as dusty as in 19th century, research shows

So next time remember that I am not a lying dumbass like you so what I post is going to be accurate


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000
> ...



Amazing that there are satellites that would immediatly tell us if the data of the ground stations were being fudged. Amazing that they also state the same as the ground stations. Even Dr. Spencer's graph shows the increase in temperatures for the last ten years.

The AGU, GSA, and Royal Society all state that the temperatures have been increasing over the last 150 years. But you know differant, right? Now who is the non-thinking person?


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000





Conservatives like the ones at RSS, GISS, NOAA and Hadley?

Save up and buy a fact.

2011 August 15 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






And yet the globe has cooled across the last 10 years.  Is this Union CO2 that only works when it feels like working?

2011 August 15 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...





The rise and fall of temperature is not mirrored by the rise and rise of CO2.

To a far greater degree, the rise and fall of temperature is mirrored by the rise and fall of solar radiation.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/77987/nasa_solar_activity.jpg


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Note how the conversation descended immediatly into flap-yap and invectutive on the part of the 'sceptics' when real science was cited. Not a single peer reviewed paper to support their bullshit opinions. Just lies and nonsense. "It's getting colder" In spite of the fact that even by Dr. Spencers graph the low of this double La Nina was higher then the average highs prior to 1998. "CO2 doesn't really increase heat retention". Even Dr. Lindzen, when he is not busy defending tobacco, has to admit that CO2 is a GHG. Fourier did the math for the albedo of the Earth in the early 1820's, and stated that there had to be something in the atmosphere that was absorbing the outgoing heat, because by the figures, the oceans should be frozen to the equator. Tyndall, in 1859, published a paper that described the absorbtion spectra of most GHGs. Arrhenius, in 1896, did a study on the effects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and, given the knowledge of the time, came surprisingly close to the numbers we have today for the affects of the increase in GHGs. Yet the numbskulls here still insist there is no proof or scientifically rigiorous papers concerning the properties of GHGs that increase the heat in the atmosphere and ocean.
> ...



LOL.  What a dumb ass statement!  Cooling from 2001 to today? What are you smoking tonight, Code?

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The running average for 2010 equaled the running average for 1998. A double La Nina and the bottom of the running average is higher than the high points for the running average prior to 1998. 

When we get the next inevitable El Nino, we will get some real eye popping temperatures. 

No, no cooling, just a lot of hot lies from the energy corperations.


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...





RSS, GISS, Hadley and NOAA all have a decrease over the last ten years.

Do you have a link that shows an increase over the last ten years?

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Not to put too fine a point on this, but the trend line in the graph on your link shows cooling over the last ten years.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2012)

code1211 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000
> ...



LOL.  And when we add 2012 into that graph for the lower 48, we are going to see the line on the upward tilt again. 

And why the continued lying, Code. Star said the earth, you gave us information concerning less than 2% of the earth's surface. And did not state so in your post.

You are beginning to post like Frankie Boy.


----------



## code1211 (May 16, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...







RSS and Hadcrut work only in the USA?

Get RSS on the phone and let them know they need to shoot down their satellites.

Still drinking and posting?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 16, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Amazing the 10 hottest years on record occurred after the year 2000 and Conservatives claim the earth has cooled after the year 2000


Is it just me or does anyone else feel like they're in a time warp with Zergboi's statement?  He's so pre climategate, when the veneer of truth flaked off AGW.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 16, 2012)

The radical bomb throwers keep posting up the science BS...........but nobody is listening. These dolts think they are going to create some groundswell from this nether-region of the internet.

Plan B time s0ns............


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Im sure you already said this before but it is worth repeating. the temperature during the present interglacial has been steadily decreasing while the CO2 levels have been going up. why is an 8000 year trend ignored for a <100 year trend?


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...







You mean those satellites that were found to be reading as much as 600 degrees too hot?  Those satellites?  You have the memory of a gnat don't you.  Of course it helps your religion so you will accept whatever scripture they give you.  Religious fanatics are like that.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2012)

IanC said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Because it fits their scripture.  History doesn't count.  You see history proves their religion to be a lie.


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...




Old Rocks-  you bring up an interesting point. the continental US is only a small part of the earth but it is the best measured. one of the reasons the global temp has gone up is because areas like the Arctic and Africa have a prominent component even though they have very poor coverage. the precision and accuracy we imagine is in place because of the measurements in much of the western world simply dont exist in many other areas. 

we know for certain that there has been little warming in the conUS, but that portion of the global dataset is dwarved by the African continent component that has very little data and what little there is just happens to be pathetically incomplete and racked with unproven adjustments.

for a glimpse of how wretched temperature records are in Africa read this article based on official measurements. GISS Inventing Temperatures In Africa « NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT and GISS Inventing Temperatures In Africa&ndash;Part II « NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

perhaps the strangest part of climate science is how they treat significant figures. we all learned in high school that when you combine figures of different degrees of precision that your answer can only be expressed with as much precision as the least precise figure used. in world temp datasets it seems like every bit of data gets expressed as precisely as the most precise bit of data. it is a monstrous joke that temperature data is given to three decimal places when realistically it is a stretch to be certain to the nearest whole number.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 17, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





Ian with the post of *epiC PWN!!!!*. Brilliant!!!


The environmental crowd has become incredibly astute at being able to manipulate data to perpetuate this hoax.............indeed, they've made a science of it. Pretty slick if you ask me.


Thankfully, we have brilliant minds like Ian, West, wirebender, et. al. to make some sense of it all, and I get a kick out of how their contributions cause total mental meltdowns amongst the climate radicals. When they get publically humiliated, they explode.........and nothing makes me laugh harder. Priceless entertainment. Ive always noticed that its the constant MO with the left.............when the ruse gets blown to shit, they lose their minds!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 17, 2012)

Meanwhile...........coal making a huge comback in Germany FTMFW

The Breakthrough Institute: Germany Returns to Coal


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 17, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



it's political because government wants to use climate change as a means to impose more controls on the people.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why is it that when confronted with reality your response it up make shit up and lie?


----------



## wirebender (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> And a 4th grade education would tell you that Carbon in the atmosphere warsm teh earth.



And yet, a PhD in physics can't describe a mechanism by which it happens without violating the laws of physics.  Care to prove me wrong?



starcraftzzz said:


> If its not human caused activities such as emitting CO2 of which is proven to warm the earth what is warming the earth?



CO2 has not been proven to warm anything.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And by 8th grade Earth Science, you learn how little CO2 exists in the atmosphere and is vastly overshadowed by Water Vapor by a magnitude of 1000-2000 times.  That's when you learn about atmospheric composition.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



See this is the prolbem you you think "the amount of CO2 compared to other chemicals" is the same thing as the effects of CO2
So go back to 3rd grade English learn to read then come back here


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Why is it you too have the memory of a gnat?   I don't need to lie schmuck...you guys make this all too easy for us.  Why lie when you fools give us all the ammo we need to shoot you down.




Tim Blair

Wednesday, August 11, 2010(11:50am)




600°F in Egg Harbor, Wisconsin! 



Egg Harbor, Wisconsin, really got cooking this July 4th around 9:59AM, according to NOAA and Coast Watch. It was there, at the bottom left row of the temperature data points, that the records reveal on that day a phenomenally furnace-like 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

Further analysis of the web pages shows that the incredibly wide temperature swings were occurring in remarkably short 10-hour periods - and sometimes in less than 5 hours. Strangely, none of the 250 citizens or the 78 families living in the village appeared to notice this apocalyptic heatwave during their holiday festivities.


Also noted: 430 degrees Fahrenheit at Lake Michigan. The planet has a fever! 



BOILED EGG | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...


So... it is a known fact that Water Vapor is THE primary greenhouse gas.  It is present in atmosphere between 4-8% depending on location and weather.

CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere and is a relatively mild greenhouse gas.  Measured in PPM.

Methane is even less and although stronger than CO2, is measured in PPB rendering it neglegible.

Mankind produces only 0.06% of all CO2.  This means that mankind is only responsible for 0.0024% of all atmospheric volume change.  This is not even measurable in a global scale.

But yet, it's destroying the climate.

The fact a single moderate volcanic eruption produces similar chemicals to human industrialization throughout it's entire history means it is LESS powerful than mankind?

So, knowing all of this, either Mankind must produce magic CO2, or something else could be the cause that has NOTHING to do with the activity of man.

You just need the first 45 seconds to get the point of your position.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfdLQuaC1nA&feature=relmfu]Good Morning Vietnam -p12/17 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You'd think, living within 50 miles of there, I'd have felt something.  A warm breeze perhaps?  I know that the Lattes at the Chocolate Chicken don't run THAT hot.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...







Well, it was just global warming heat so it is really dry


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


How can steamed milk be dry?  LOL  Dammit, now I'm craving one of their Fudge Drumsticks.... okay.. not really.  I couldn't eat only one.

Maybe I should phone to see if Ray's Cherry Hut still exists or if the frozen cherries kept them safe?


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...







I dunno, it would take a shitload of cherries to counter that much heat.  i don't know if there are enough frozen cherries on the planet to do that!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


but but but... frozen in sugar water!!!! that makes all the difference cause they're so sweet, right? Cuteness and tasty counteract physics right?



As an aside, is a 'shitload' more than a peck or bushel?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 18, 2012)

For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as  naive gets s0ns..........


Our Team &mdash; American Carbon Registry


Winrock International - Clean Energy - Links



fucking dolts.........they think the opportunistic greedy are only in fossil fuels.


Ive always been fascinated by that............this profound level of naive amongst the environmental radicals. These people missed some meetings in the formative years.


----------



## OldManOnFire (May 19, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Long long ago in a faraway place people could find consensus in truths.  After all, the truth is supposed to be the ultimate position, no matter if objective or subjective.

But today one man's truth is another man's lie or BS.  The blind passions of religion and political and special interest dogma have superseded truth!  

Lastly, the collective we believe or think we are an intelligent species.  But the 'truth' is we barely have one foot out of the primordial muck!  Most of the issues today are quite complex and wide in scope and without a great deal of time and focus are beyond the comprehension of average people.  Yet most of us believe we can solve global climate change, or government deficit spending, or obesity, etc. in a few words in a public forum.  And depending on the forum, and depending on how the dogma controls us, we can find eternal happiness today no matter if our foundation is based on truth or lies...


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...









Oh, way, WAY more than a peck!


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as  naive gets s0ns..........
> 
> 
> Our Team &mdash; American Carbon Registry
> ...



Yes accepting realtiy and facts is totaly naive but you being a tool of big oil and telling us that all the eivdence and allt he scintsitis int he world is cooked is you being intelligent.


----------



## westwall (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as  naive gets s0ns..........
> ...







What reality and what facts?  The reality is that the planet has been stable or cooling for the last 10 plus years no matter how much your high priests alter the data, the fact remains and the people KNOW it.

As far as facts go, see above.  Once you are reduced to falsification the people realise you have no "facts" at all.

You folks have screwed the pooch in such a major way I can see why you are reduced to childish tantrums and ever larger lies to try and gin up support again.  I guess you never read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".  Good story, encapsulates the AGW movement in a childs book.

Who knew.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > For the lefty dolts who think this is all about the science.....................as naive as  naive gets s0ns..........
> ...






I only care that the "naive" side is winning s0n....................


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2012)

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14553/Dead-Last-Pew-Poll-Global-warming-finishes-22nd-of-22-top-policy-priorities-of-2012-A-quarter-of-Americans-now-find-climate-change-a-top-concern-down-from-almost-4-in-10-in-2007


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2012)




----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



If you really cared you wouldnt be part of the naïve side If you really cared you wouldnt be part of the naïve side whose position is that all the evidence, every fact based organization and every scientist is some how wrong just because oil companies and Glenn Beck say so


----------



## Big Fitz (May 20, 2012)

I'm happy.  I just got to debunk the brains of 10 other men who were suckered with magic man-made CO2.  Loved the lights that went off over their heads when they realized how insignificant we are to the power of nature.


----------



## code1211 (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...






Are taking a poll?

Why not present the proof?


----------



## theunbubba (May 20, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.

Here it is:
Speak truth to liberals: Global warming debunking resource guide

Have a good read and get back to us.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 20, 2012)

theunbubba said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...




Clicked on that "Follow the Money" link dude...........

94 billion over the years in green stimulus. About as smart as me buying a brand new  ZO6 Corvette for my 9 year old so she can look at it in the driveway..


What a fucking disgrace. The crazies have taken over the world


----------



## wirebender (May 21, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> If you really cared you wouldnt be part of the naïve side If you really cared you wouldnt be part of the naïve side whose position is that all the evidence, every fact based organization and every scientist is some how wrong just because oil companies and Glenn Beck say so



I know that the kook aid makes the world around you fuzzy and hard to understand so I suppose you are unaware that there are over 1000 peer reviewed papers out there supporting the skeptical side of this argument.


----------



## theunbubba (May 26, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> theunbubba said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Not yet. They are also a dead end philosophy. I have proof of that too.


----------



## Saigon (May 26, 2012)

theunbubba said:


> Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
> Conservatives around the world? LMAO. Get a clue.
> .



This really is very, very funny. 

Irony really is the highest form of wit.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2012)

Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?

for those unfamiliar, Briffa selected treering data that had showed a 20th century increase of temp and threw away the majority of data that did not show warming. by the 1990's he was down to a handful of trees out of thousands. 

Climategate Continues - Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler - National Review Online


> Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa&#8217;s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2012)

Saigon said:


> theunbubba said:
> 
> 
> > Pure bunk. There are no Conservative parties in the countries you mentioned. They have been propagandised into believing that there are, but they do not exist.
> ...






On this board we seem to round and round regarding the definition of Liberal and Conservative.  I happen to be a Conservative, but that demands adherence to a Liberal Social Agenda since governmental control is demanded to enforce the limitation of activities by individuals.

Two people can look at the exact same political action and define as both Liberal and Conservative depending on what they understand the terms to mean.

I can't see how anyone could define climate and CO2 activism as anything but Liberal, but I've been surprised many times.


----------



## Saigon (May 26, 2012)

Code1211 - 

The definitions of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a minefield, and certainly I don't think the former can carry a single, global definition. 

But what I think is so brilliant about Theunbuddas post is that he really skewers this thinking that if I am a conservative, I also define conservatism, and that I am free to rule that whatever anyone else things is simply not conerservatism. 

Realistically, conservatism can cover a huge swathe of territory on the political spectrum, from McCarthy to McCain, from Thatcher to Sakorzy...and I challenge anyone to claim they aren't conservatives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
> 
> for those unfamiliar, Briffa selected treering data that had showed a 20th century increase of temp and threw away the majority of data that did not show warming. by the 1990's he was down to a handful of trees out of thousands.
> 
> ...



Exxon made him do it.


----------



## code1211 (May 26, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Code1211 -
> 
> The definitions of both 'liberal' and 'conservative' are a minefield, and certainly I don't think the former can carry a single, global definition.
> 
> ...





If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.


----------



## Saigon (May 26, 2012)

code1211 said:


> If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.



This seems to assume that there are only two political options on the spectrum - liberal and coneservative.

We know that there are a good dozen schools of political thought, and why Americans seem to only refer to two is a mystery to me.


----------



## Saigon (May 26, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
> 
> f



Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap. 

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine. 

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2012)

being a liberal meant something quite a bit different 50 years ago



> Essence of the Liberal Outlook
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.
> ...







There are only two governmental types, collectivist and individualist.  You can play any word games you wish but those are your choices.  Collectivist governments require the maximum from it's citizens while giving them the least.  Individualist governments are the opposite.

A good balance between the two gives the best chance for the largest majority of people to live happily.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
> ...







The hockey stick is a wonderful example of pseudo science.  It is based almost completely on a single tree from a rather large grove of trees.  The formula that Mann used was so bad that no matter what number you punch in the result is allways warming and on and on.

It is no analogy, it is pure fraud.  Now that the CRU is going to have to release the records that have been requested for years, we will finally be able to determine just how bad the fraud is.

Science is about literalism.  More specifically observation and measurement.  When one reduces science to a subjective outlook you might just as well be doing ice dancing....the two are then the same in nearly all ways.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Westwall - 

And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2012)

Saigon-   I have to agree with westwall that MBH98,99 were pseudoscience. but the worst part was that the climate science community decided to back the obviously flawed papers.

you say it is just 2 papers out of hundreds. I say the Hockey Stick graph was the most important and iconic figure in climate science, ever. in Canada it was sent out to everyone by the govt as proof of global warming and the dire consequences that were being forecast. unfortunately for M. Mann, Steve McIntyre is one of those canadians who received that pamphlet, and so the long saga began.

the data were cherry-picked, the methods were flawed, inconvenient sections were simply deleted. when the data and methods were hidden from inspection, did the scientists and science journals jump in to verify that everything was kosher? no they did not. in fact they hindered and stonewalled as much as possible.

did climate scientists continue to use bristlecone pines and the famous YAD061? of course they did! and Mann sweetened the pot with the upside-down Tiljander cores as well. if you repealed all the temp reconstructions that use those three proxy series then you have nothing left except the old reconstructions that show a large MWP and the LIA. people dont seem to realize how often these bogus data are used in other papers. that is undoubtedly one of the main reasons for not wanting to clean up the whole affair. can you imagine the uproar if 100 papers (low estimate) were yanked from the journals due to toxic data?

enough ranting. I understand how people want to give science and scientists the benefit of the doubt but every area of climate science has festering wounds where someone has fabricated (adjusted) data or simply refused to publish contrary data, and no one seems willing to put things right. Feynman must be spinning in his grave.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.
> ...





I see political thought not as a single continuum on which all issues can be placed, but rather as a method of thinking to consider how to make a solution to any issue.

So, let's use the most polarizing issue in American Politics:  Abortion.

To me, if you favor the free market availability of abortion to all within the confines of today's existing medical frame work, you are a Conservative.

If you favor the interference of government into this by either banning this or forcing organizations to promote it, you are a Liberal.

I think Anarchy is the extreme expression of Conservatism and absolute dictatorial government control and support of all individual action and interaction is the extreme expression of Liberalism. 

To the extent that you favor the support or control of government in your life or in the lives of others, that is the extent to which you are a Liberal. 

By the extent to which you favor moving to either extreme end of the spectrum, that is the extent to which you are nuts.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If there is anything in your life that you feel the government should not control, that part of your thinking is Conservative.
> ...





What are those schools of thought?  I would think that in all cases, you could apply some measure to gauge the amount of governmental support or control of individual lives contained in these systems and THAT is what defines them as either Conservative or Liberal.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
> ...





Wow!

You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.

Is this your estimate of the abilities of the population and the role of government?


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Code - 

Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories. 

I am recommending that you take a look at some of the 800+ latest research papers, none of which have ever stood accused of any kind of shortcuts or junk science, rather than get lost in red herrings. 

Keep in mind - not a single scientific body agrees with your position on this topic. Not one.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.





Yo Nitz..........its not about the science. Dummy. Its the whole point of the thred ( which I basically locked, obstensibly, a few pages ago ).

The k00ks present volumes of suppossedly irrefutable information and data............*BUT ITS NOT MATTERING*


If it is.......................


----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2012)

*New poll says global warming is not a major environmental concern*

Kevin UsselmanMay 23, 2012 07:43:55 AM

Canadians are more worried about water, air and land pollution than they are about the planet heating up.

A new survey conducted by Abacus Data for QMI Agency found 55 per cent of Canadians are worried about the pollution of drinking water with river, lake and reservoir pollution not far behind.

The president of the polling firm, David Colleto, tells 660News the survey also shows environmental concerns vary depending on where people live and who they vote for.


New poll says global warming is not a major environmental concern - 660News







And where is "Global Warming" on the list of TOP 20 concerns of Americans?????



*DEAD LAST s0ns*


Poll: Economy remains Americans' top concern - The Hill's On The Money
















But we can always continue this thread of drivel!! Im getting a kick out of it!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 27, 2012)




----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Code -
> 
> Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories.
> 
> ...





You say 800?  That's terrific.  Why are their predictions all wrong?  I would have thought that maybe they'd be right if they were all that smart.

However, you said that the use of the Hockey stick was justified because it explained the problem in a way that could be understood by the stupid people in the public.

It was based on flawed science, showed a history that does not exist, distorts the nature and magnitude of the problem and assumes a cause that is not proven.

It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.

Why are you ignoring the topic?


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

code1211 said:


> It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.



Really?

Can you give me the post number where I said this? 



> You are recommending the dissemination of misleading propaganda from governments to trick the populations into following an agenda that is neither explained nor revealed.



Stupid, stupid posting from you, Code.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.


So for you it's what the establishment says.  Right or wrong.  You stick with the title, not the facts.

Okay, gotcha.  Your credibility is done here.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Fitz - 

No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that. 

Earlier I posted a list of more than 50 scientific bodies from right around the world, and across a huge range of different areas of science - everything from geophysics to biology, from geography to climatlogy. 

If you are right and they are wrong, then it only makes sense that a fair number of other scientific bodies would take up your case. 

But none do. 

So this is a little like consulting 50 different doctors, and then claiming that they are all wrong and you are right, despite the fact no doctors agree with you.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.
> 
> ...


But you yourself have stated you won't accept evidence from any source regardless of accuracy. Only those who have a title and prestige to your satisfaction.


Others have posted information regarding this. I don't need to. But you need to be not so lazy as to go and look it up. 358 posts is NOT much to look through.

Of course, this assumes you actually WANT your viewpoint challanged, which I seriously doubt. You want the elites to tell you what to think regardless of fact.

I've watched you act like a pet owner teasing their animals with a treat but then yanking it back when they jump up to get it.  They'd easily succeed but at the last second, you move it away from their mouth.  You've no credibility.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Fitz - 

I think the analogy of medicine and doctors is a good one. 

Naturally if we feel ill, we think first ourselves what the diagnosis might, and consider some common sense possibilities and solutions. 

We may then choose a doctor we trust. 

If his diagnosis doesn't fit, we might consult another doctor, perhaps a specialist. 

But when 50 doctors all come to a similar conclusion, and there is no real dissenting voice, I tend to go with the 50 doctors. 

I've read quite a few studies on particular issues - largely to do with glaciers, desertification and coral reefs, because I have seen evidence of these with my own eyes, so they naturally interest me more. 

My conlusion based on those reports and my own observations in places like Spain, Australia, Mozambique and Bangladesh, I think the scientists have got it right.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> I think the analogy of medicine and doctors is a good one.
> 
> ...


To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.



No, that's nonsense - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I have listed 50 scientific bodies who represent the experts in their various fields and countries. THEY are the 'doctors'. 

So far you have not listed single scientific body who disagree.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.
> ...


You chose the poor analogy. I just ran with it.

OR did you mean you prefer to accept only the actuarial tables of the health insurance industry because 'their studies indicate' you need medical treatment when you exhibit no symptoms because it's the typical time these problems happen?

I don't need to be your research monkey.  I just have common sense and questions that even an 8th grade science book and basic understanding of proportions show mankind is NOT the cause of any change in climate and therefore NO governmental action need be taken.  Adapt and thrive like we have since the dawn of man.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Fitz - 

I think the analogy is excellent, and I stand by it. 

And I think we can assume that if there was any scientific backing for your position, you'd be using it yourself.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> I think the analogy is excellent, and I stand by it.
> 
> And I think we can assume that if there was any scientific backing for your position, you'd be using it yourself.


I have. I did. You ignored.

It's called an 8th grade science text. Do I need to get fancier?

You've not answered my question once about it saying instead that I need to obey somebody with a fancy title somewhere else even though they use corrupt data.

I'm sorry, but the "Don't beleive your lying eyes, believe this person's title." argument doesn't hold water. Appeal to authority argument fails every time.

So I'll ask again.

How does mankinds contribution of 0.0024% of all atmospheric composition, which is only 0.06% of CO2 control the climate of the planet when the remaining 99.04% of natural production is A) Ignored and B) insignificant compared to the power of Water Vapor?

Answer me that.

Why do we need global fascism for something so absolutely insignificant and with zero chance of changing what is going on with the natural climate of the planet?


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

IF mankind were actually the cause of climate change, then we'd expect to see no evidence of climate change prior to humankind or at least prior human society dumping so-called greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in any significant volume.  But, we DO see climate change -- historically -- both before human society took technology to that point and before humankind even existed. 

One need not be a Ph.D., therefore, to conclude that the "A" part of AGW is not really a significant factor in historical climate change.

To this the AGW-faithers say, "ah but NOW humankind IS dumping tons of 'stuff' into the environment which our models predict will lead inevitably to climate change."

What the AGW type proponents have NEVER done is to show any verifiable correlation between human activity and actual climate change.   Lots of "theory."  Not a speck of "proof."

And despite that, the loons of the AGW-faith insist that there is "no credible dispute" to their fanciful contentions.    They are, of course, merely mouthing their belief as fact.  That still doesn't make it so.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> And as soon as you have presented a ist of scientific bodies which agree with your position, it might become worth considering.







Ask your PhD candidate wife about the logic of appeals to authority as a method of argumentation.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Code -
> 
> Please try to respond to what I post, rather than just make up stories.
> 
> ...






Have you looked at the 1000+ papers that disagree with the warmists?   Have you looked at the CV's of the 30,000+ scientists who don't agree with the AGW premise.  No, you havn't.  I have read a great deal of the papers you are so enamored with and they are examples of such poor science as to be pathetic.

Computer models accepted as data!  Ridiculous!  AGW science is as poor an example of the scientific method as you could witness.  What is particularly galling is Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than the scientists involved in AGW research!  

That's ABSURD!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 27, 2012)

Huh... poof Saigon disappeared when confronted with a direct question.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppqEtE]The tale of Sir Robin with subtitles (Brave Sir Robin) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.
> ...







And yet, that's exactly what you mean.  After all, one of the scientists involved is famous for making the statement that each scientist had to choose between what was factual and what would get their policies adopted...in other words he was counseling them to LIE!

I suggest you quit and go home.  You're not very good at this.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.
> 
> ...






And just think those same societies were all in agreement that Plate Tectonics was wrong until around 1965, in spite of all the evidence to support it.  They also supported the idea that Pellagra was a gene based disease...till they started getting it during the Great Depression and they finally decided to really investigate it.....and found it was a nutrition based disease.

I can go on and on about how often the scientific bodies have been wrong in their opinions.
That's why appeals to authority are fraught with problems.  Large groups like that vote based on the money they get from their opinions.  You're just not educated enough to figure that out.  Some day you might.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > It is this to which i responded and it is is what you said.
> ...






Your post #342:

"Not particularly - given there are now more than 800 peer reviewed scientific papers available on climate change, focusing on one you seem to have found a problem with seems like learning about a Ford Mustang by examining only the distributor cap. 

Secondly, the 'hockey stick' to me was less an accurate scientific statement than an alaogy that the non-science public could easily understand. At that level I thought it was fine. 

Taking it too literally never seemed terribly clever to me."
__________________


How would you interpret this tho mean anything other than what I said?


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> No, it's nothing to do with any sinister covert 'establishment' - you'll have to do better than that.
> 
> ...






Ho w do they explain that the worming that we currently enjoy has been under way for 2000 years with an interruption for the Little Ice Age?

Also, how do they explain that the cooling portion of the Little Ice Age ended about 150 years prior to the cause they cite as the one that is causing our current warming?

Did the CO2 level increased by the Industrial Revolution have a time machine?


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > To look at that analogy, you're essentially saying you will listen to nobody but the drug companies and hospital administrators, even though most General Practitioners, Nurse Practitioners and specialists are contradicting them.
> ...





You pretty much discount the guys at CERN as idiots, then?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 27, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


The "_guys at CERN_" are fine. It is you and the other denier cultists who are the idiots.

And, BTW, the CERN results have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








Other than to refute the underlying science I agree!  What a doofus you are.  I mean really, do you know anything?  At all?


----------



## percysunshine (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...




European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO! 

Moron.


----------



## code1211 (May 27, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





That response is everything that all of my experience with you has taught me to expect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I don't see science as being a political issue. *

Science isn't a political issue.
Twisting the data to achieve your political aim is when it becomes political.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 27, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......oh lord, you retards are soooooo gullible.....it just breaks my heart to see you so totally bamboozled.....your arrogance on top of your ignorance is pretty funny too....

The lead scientist at CERN pursuing this particular line of inquiry, Dr. Jasper Kirkby, had this to say, as quoted in an article in Nature magazine, about his recent CLOUD cosmic ray experiment:

*"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"*

Dr Kirkby also had this to say in an interview with MSNBC.COM's LiveScience:

*The research doesn't call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research. Climate models currently predict an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The data generated by the CLOUD experiment (CLOUD stands for "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") will feed into global models of aerosol formation, Kirkby said, which in turn will carry into global climate models. "It's part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture," he said.** "But it in no way disproves the other pieces."* 

Moreover, in order for cosmic rays to be actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, there would have to have been a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades, and there hasn't been any such trend. You gullible denier cult dimwits are so full of spun-up propaganda BS, it's pouring out your ears.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!
> 
> Moron.



Which party is in power in England right now?

Which party is in power in Germany right now?

Please answer honestly.


----------



## Saigon (May 27, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *I don't see science as being a political issue. *
> 
> ...




Yes, I'd agree with that. It's a good response. 

So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.

I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change. 

As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science. 

These findings have been crucial in convincing the worlds 50 major scientific bodies of climate change. 

Are we agreed so far?


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!
> ...







What party do you think Merkel is?  Sounds like a card carrying Republican to me



Like most pupils, Merkel was a member of the official, Socialist-led youth movement Free German Youth (FDJ). However, she did not take part in the secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe, which was common in East Germany, and was confirmed instead. Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel herself claimed that she was secretary for culture. When Merkel's onetime FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80."[12] Merkel's progress in the compulsory Marxism-Leninism course was graded only genügend (sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.[13]


Angela Merkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...







How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...





" never let a crisis go to waste". politicians are willing to reward findings that useful to them. AGW is just too good to be true with all its layers of bureaucratic slop troughs


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's because "_those_" are a fantasy existing only in the diseased, deluded brains of dim-witted dingbat denier cultists like you, walleyed.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

westwall said:


> How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.



There are not 1000 peer-reviewed studies which conclude that humans are not playing some part in climate change. 

If you take out the ones obviously funded by lobbies, you are proably down to about three studies.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon-   have you followed the latest back and forth over the Yamal FOI? have you found a way to support the cherry-picking of data that went into a proxy data set that is a significant portion of most or the hockey stick shaped temperature reconstructions?
> ...




it seems to me that whenever you are shown to be less than correct you simply show distain for the 'one' instance, and then want to change the subject to something else.

someone else, Myles Allen, has been doing the same thing lately.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NpOcGhPwnw&feature=player_embedded]Professor Myles Allen - Climate Change: So Last Decade - YouTube[/ame]

at least Allen had the fortitude to respond when his hypocrisy was commented on
- Bishop Hill blog - Myles Allen writes

and of course that response brought another, this time from an IPCC reviewer that wanted Mann98,99 and the hockey stick graph out of AR4-
Myles Allen and a New Trick to Hide-the-Decline « Climate Audit


> Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies like the Hockey Stick:
> 
> _My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change_
> But its not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be criticizing; its John Houghton who more or less made the Hockey Stick the logo of the IPCC. Mann was told that IPCC higher-ups wanted a visual that didnt dilute the message and they got one: they deleted the last part of the Briffa reconstruction  Hide the Decline. If, as Allen now says, its an irrelevancy, then Houghton and IPCC should not have used it so prominently. And they should not have encouraged or condoned sharp practice like Hide the Decline.
> ...




the damage done by the hockey stick graph is immense, and simply ignoring it will not repair the damage. the warmers have already sucked out enormous amounts of publicity from it but now that it has been proven as a fraud they want to just stop talking about it and the scandals that should be made public.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.
> ...




I realize people get worked up over this topic and tend to exaggerate, but....

are you serious??


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Ian - 

I'm not worked up, but I didn't mean the '3' literally, anymore than you meant the '1000' literally. 

We both know that the number of recent peer-reviewed papers which conclude that human acitivity plays some role in climate change outnumber the opposite by dozens to one, if not hundreds to one.


----------



## rdean (May 28, 2012)

To Republicans, all science is political.

Only magic is real.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.

the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.

you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Saigon-  you seem to like peer reviewed papers by legitimate climate scientists. I suggest you visit R. Pielke, Sr's site for a glimpse into the 'other' side. he is an author and coauthor of a great many papers, he has ongoing discussions with many of the bright lights of your side of climate science, and his links to papers are seldom paywalled.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. | by Roger Pielke Sr.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.
> ...



Here is a little background information. The peasants for plutocracy on the right you are arguing with here want you to believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated. Even though the most blatant evidence of their plan to launch a well funded PR and disinformation campaign was leaked years ago when the American Petroleum Institute issued their 'action' plan. And that action had nothing to do with science. It had everything to do with preserving their profits.

Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan

*Victory Will Be Achieved When*

    Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

    Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

    Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

    Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.
*
Current Reality*

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
*
Strategies and Tactics*

*I. National Media Relations Program:* Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

*Tactics:* These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

    Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

 Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

    Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

    Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

    Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

    Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

    Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.



Industrys Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobaccos Strategy

The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novelfar from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industrys notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.

The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:

_For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

    The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood, the coalition said in a scientific backgrounder provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that scientists differ on the issue.

    But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

    The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied, the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

    The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.
_
Check out the full article here and the original documents here.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



hahahaha

and yet you dont believe what the climate scientists said in their own words in the climategate emails?


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

from bfgrn's post-


> The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel&#8211;far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry&#8217;s notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers&#8217; own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.
> 
> The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:



the concensus climate scientists have been actively speading misinformation and suppressing inconvenient data for years as is made clear in the climategate I&II emails. which is worse? I think that being lied to by those that you trust is more harmful than those that are the outside opinion. another question; which is worse, the scientist that is willing to lie because he thinks the ends justify the means, or the other scientists that refuse to point out the lie because they fear for their professional standing? how many other scientists were willing to publically lambast Mann and the hockey team other than Muller?


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Maybe it was the plethora of investigations debunking your claims.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy 

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> from bfgrn's post-
> 
> 
> > The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novelfar from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industrys notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.
> ...



Let me ask you ONE question...do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines hoping their billion dollar industries are not regulated?


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.
> ...






The question is not whether there is "some part" being played but if the contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere by the activities of Man is the prime driver of Climate change.

The rise of CO2 has been pretty consistent over the last 120 years and the rises and the falls of the temperature of the world, obviously, do not follow this consistency.  The contribution by Man is a small fraction of the total CO2 added annually.

There are, also obviously, other factors that either overpower or render CO2 impotent altogether as a driver of climate.

As a doubter, all I need to do is observe what has actually happened in the real world.

As an alarmist, you must prove why the evidence from that actual world does not match your theory and then justify why the governments of the world need to completely wreck the world economy, which teeters today on the brink of collapse, in favor of sanity.

You are free to proceed.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Criminal Neglect Of Future Generations

By Dr. Brian Moench

By every scientific measure greenhouse gases are heating the Earth rapidly and forcing us all to participate in a game of climate Russian roulette. In fact, Russia is one of this year's biggest losers. Temperatures 25 degrees hotter than normal, causing apocalyptic wildfires, have turned central and western Russia, including Moscow, into a ghoulish hell to rival J.R.R. Tolkien's Mordor. Death rates are double the norm from the heat and smoke, thousands have already died.

20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.

In many countries like the Sudan, Kenya and Bangladesh, millions of people have already become climate refugees, abandoning their homes and countries because sustaining life there is no longer possible. Climate disasters are mounting in on virtually every continent. Record breaking heat in our East and South, unprecedented flooding in Tennessee and Iowa, and a chronic, deepening drought in the Western US have given us just a taste of the misery other countries are now enduring.

This summer's events fit exactly the scientists' projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming. Notwithstanding the Kool Aid being broadcast at Fox News, even "snowmageddon" fits into the models of a human caused climate crisis.

Last year the lead article in the Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, written by 29 distinguished medical scientists called the climate consequences of the greenhouse gas phenomenon, "The biggest global health threat of the 21st century," and will "put the lives and well being of billions of people at increased risk." The report goes on to state that, "Even the most conservative estimates are profoundly disturbing and demand action. Less conservative climate scenarios are so catastrophic that adaptation might be unachievable." The authors said "what is needed now is a public health movement that frames the threat of the climate crisis for humankind as a health issue."

Note these words from the president of the World Medical Association. "Climate change represents an inevitable, massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major known pandemics as the leading cause of death and disease in the 21st century."

TheLancet.com


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






You need to Google the dictionary and look up both "Weather" and "Climate".

There are areas currently occupied by the other 6 billion people in the world that were not occupied ever before due to the risk of living in those areas.  How many American indian Tribes were located on the ocean coasts?

0.

Wasn't there a prediction of dire consequence, just like what you have shown above, that said that Katrina style hurricanes would be the norm and not the exception?

Where are they?

The fact remains that the Warming we currently enjoy started about 2000 years ago, was interrupted by the Little Ice Age, resumed about 150 years prior to the Industrial Revolution and continues today.

Warming is a condition of the climate.  Isolating the cause of the warming is the job of the Alarmists such as yourself.  Acknowledging that the warming was occurring before the cause you cite is what drives doubters, like me.

The advent of Anthropogenic CO2 could not have caused any warming prior to 1850 and yet warming was occurring.

Please explain how the future causes the past.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Global Warming*

Throughout its long history, Earth has warmed and cooled time and again. Climate has changed when the planet received more or less sunlight due to subtle shifts in its orbit, as the atmosphere or surface changed, or when the Suns energy varied. But in the past century, another force has started to influence Earths climate: humanity

*What is Global Warming?*

Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earths average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.

*How Does Todays Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?*

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

*Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isnt Natural?*

In Earths history before the Industrial Revolution, Earths climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

*How Much More Will Earth Warm?*

Models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earths average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century. Some of this warming will occur even if future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because the Earth system has not yet fully adjusted to environmental changes we have already made.
*
How Will Earth Respond to Warming Temperatures?*

The impact of global warming is far greater than just increasing temperatures. Warming modifies rainfall patterns, amplifies coastal erosion, lengthens the growing season in some regions, melts ice caps and glaciers, and alters the ranges of some infectious diseases. Some of these changes are already occurring.

_The Earth Observatory is part of the EOS Project Science Office located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center_


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Ever hear of Tlingit, Haida, or Chinook? 

Like so much of your bullshit, this is totally wrong. The last 2000 years has seen warming and cooling, but never warming at the rate we are experiancing today. 

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

The pdf version is free and it is real information from real scientists, not bullshit from pretenders.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

The environmental extremist asshats still dont get it.


Still cant produce a single link showing us how the science is matering. Nobody is falling all over themselves to go hog wild into green energy. It is still decidedly fringe and will continue to be for decades.


Meanwhile........................



Why American Natural Gas Will Change The World - Forbes




But the k00ks will continue to grease the skids with propaganda crap from whacko websites tendered by committed nutters. The "real science" they'll say...............but it doesnt matter.





*>> By the way..........Forbes, US News, Businees Weekly, The Guardian UK, and the links I post = far more credible than links posted up by environmental radicals which are funded by communist green  groups<<*


..............just sayin'


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





I stand corrected.  These tribes and probably others did live in areas that were not subject to tropical hurricanes.  Do you have the statistics on the modern weather disaster that have caused billions of dollars of damage in the areas that were home to these tribes?

As always, you are the king of facts that have no bearing on the discussion.

The coastal areas of the EASTERN AND THE GULF SHORES OF THE US are what I was talking about and I failed to say this.  There were probably also tribes in Greenland living on the coasts and along the Hudson Bay.

During this interglacial, we seem to have warmed this quickly about 12,000 years ago, about 8000 yard ago and about 5000 years ago.

We are still about a degree cooler than the high of this interglacial and the warming that you seem to think will lead to a 6 degree rise in temperature has stalled.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.
> 
> the last 30 years has seen the rise of computer models (a good thing), but they have been given far to much credence and claims of accuracy far beyond their capability (a bad thing). the inputs and assumptions for those climate models are incomplete and contrary to the real world. solar is considered insignificant and feedbacks are considered positive contrary to just about every natural system there is.
> 
> you have been told one side of the story and it sounded reasonable so you believed it. I have listened to both sides of the story and I dont particularly believe either. I dont know how old you are but I was around for the ice age scare of the 70's. it all made sense and seemed reasonable then too. nature doesnt give a fig about what we believe or how pretty our theories are. the difference between the doomsday forecasts then and now is that this time mankind is being blamed, it is a hook to gain power over our lifestyles that politicians cant resist.



Excellent comments, Ian - I really enjoyed reading that. 

I agree with a lot of what you say, and certainly credit you with having given this matter some thought. 

The thing I would disagree with is that "you have been told one side of the story". 

Much of what I believe about climate is about what I have seen with my own eyes. I've seen the flooding in Bangladesh, the deseritification in Spain and Australia, the glacial melt in New Zealand and Argentina. I've seen rising sea levels in Mozambique and experienced rapidly changing winters here in Finland. 

In each case I've talked to locals, and heard their first hand stories on how their community has changed. 

I think the problem sceptics have is often based on a very limited perspective - that if I can't see rising sea levels from my window, therefore sea levels are not rising. But actually, they are rising, and you can go and talk to people whose homes are being eroded year after year. 

My views of climate change are heavily influenced by scientific opinion, but only because it fits what I see in Spain and Australia.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.
> ...



My experiance, direct and personal, is with the glaciers and timberlines in the Cascades, Blues, Sierra Nevadas, and the Rockies. In all of these, we see rising timberlines, and rapidly receding and disappearing glaciers. Shorter winters, more heat and fires in the summer. In fact, a much longer fire season. Bug infestations that are greater than any we have experianced before in the timber. People that I have talked to from other parts of the world are seeing these same things to greater and lessor degrees, depending on where they are from. I have yet to talk to anyone that is saying that they are seeing cooling in any area of appreciable size over the last few decades.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



*So let's ignore ay science prepared by, or funded by, the solar, wind, nuclear and coal industries.*

Yes, in any case where they twist, omit or falsify data.

*I'm looking at a link which lists 800+ peer-reviewed studies, all of which confirm that human acitivity likely plays some role in climate change.* 


Likely...some...

Sounds like we need more study. Doesn't sound like the science is settled.
Certainly doesn't sound like we need to spend trillions to, under the warmists best case, stop 0.2 degrees of warming in 2080.

*As far as I am aware, not one of the studies has ever been faulted, accused of fraud, maniuplation or sloppy science. *

OMG! That's funny. Did the hockey stick somehow minimize or erase the MWP?
Did the Climategate e-mails not show cases of blocking opposing authors from being published? Data that didn't fit the prediction being manipulated with  "Mike's nature trick" to hide the decline?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > from bfgrn's post-
> ...



The oil, coal and auto industries are not regulated? When did that happen?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



*20 million Pakistanis are now homeless because of flooding from monsoon rains. Flooding in China has killed thousands. Desperation, starvation and diseases like cholera are inevitable. Crops in Russia, China and Pakistan and many other countries have been devastated, causing suspension of grain exports and price spikes. Millions who struggle to feed themselves in a normal climate will be unable to afford enough food to survive.*

Obviously the only possible cause is the CO2 we release. These things have never happened before.
Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
$9 a gallon gasoline would be a good first step.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Doesn't sound like the science is settled.



Um.....what? 

So you think because the weather hasn't changed in the past week all of the studies and analysis would have stopped?

Research will be done, and should be done, on the climate for as long as people live on the earth.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.



And this is happening...where? 

How does investing more in nuclear and tidal mean "more control over our economy"?

Which countries do you mean?

In the UK? Germany?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't sound like the science is settled.
> ...




And the impact is squat s0n. Squat. Show me the significant environmental legislation over the past 4 years curbing carbon emmissions??










Remember Cap and Trade???





You dolts can post up 1 million links about greenhouse gases having effects on temperatures. WOnt do jack shit. Now.............if we see people jet skiiing on ALaskan lakes in the middle of January for 3 or 4 weeks,, now ya might have something.




Stupid fucks!!!


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



EXCELLENT response.  I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> EXCELLENT response.  I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.



Indeed - some of the twisting of facts coming out of the oil and coal industries have been appalling - as obviously Todd is well aware.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

Going green can cost too much green - USATODAY.com



*Ooooooooooooooooops!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

The Hidden Cost of Going Green - SmartMoney.com


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion - NYTimes.com



Chances???




Egg

( ps,....the UN says it more like 76 trillion)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't sound like the science is settled.
> ...



The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.
They are wrong. 
Can I simplify it any further for you?


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.



What on earth are you talking about?

Who claimed that?

Where are your links to back that up?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

What every k00ks STILL misses is that nobody cares about the science in 2012.





Heres the proof......................




Sober Look: Cap-and-Trade is dead, even in California


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
> ...



This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
This is happening everywhere a carbon tax is enacted to "stop the warming".
Anytime cap and trade is enacted.
This is happening when Obama decides CAFE standards should be raised to 35.5 MPG in 2016.
And then raises them again to 54.5 MPG in 2025.
Obama said, the first time he ran, that he wants to bankrupt new coal plants.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw]Obama's Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

Siagon s0n........the sooner you realize you were simply born in the wrong decade, the less your life will be one of misery and anger. Its a loser from 2008 forward...........


Take up a hobby in another area of science................


Here ya go...........from todays REALCLEARSCIENCE..........some good stuff going on in the world of ketsup


MIT's Freaky Non-Stick Coating Keeps Ketchup Flowing | Co.Exist: World changing ideas and innovation


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > EXCELLENT response.  I particularly enjoyed your summary dismissal (in bold and blue) of his attempted diversion.
> ...



Not a reliable source like fictionalized Hockey Sticks?


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Not a reliable source like fictionalized Hockey Sticks?



No -  a reliable source like the 800+ peer reviewed research papers confirming the role of human acitivity in climate change that you refuse to look at.


Really - do you think anyone cares about something because it was in an Al Gore film?  I couldn't give a shit what Gore thinks, or about the hockey stick, and I doubt anyone else does either.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.



OK - but is it also happening everywhere the government gives money to a coal firm? 

How about a nuclear power station?

No money should go into tidal energy because it might be green?

Jesus wept...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The warmists keep claiming the science is settled.
> ...



Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled | FP Comment | Financial Post

Sagan: Ignore global warming at our risk | Amarillo Globe-News

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oc2YvLmPQs]Obama says the science is settled - Copenhagen Climate Change Conference - YouTube[/ame]

The Science Is Still Settled

What's Settled & Unsettled in Current Climate Change Science? : TreeHugger


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Not a reliable source like fictionalized Hockey Sticks?
> ...



But none of them "confirm" any such thing.  Not one.

Lying about what the "peer reviewed" "studies" "confirm"  is a piss-poor way to "prove" your claim.

Falsified data is a huge problem for you alarmists.  It really is.  But don't feel obligated to even address it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
> ...



Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
Certainly Obama is doing no such thing.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Dishonest obfuscation. Do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines or actively spreading propaganda that makes them billions of dollars?

They have taken the same tact big tobacco used when they denied the link between smoking and cancer, using many of the same institutions and pseudo-scientists.

But according to right wing morons, their beloved polluters and cartels are just victims.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We, the People, who are government at ALL levels are actually losing money because of coal in states like Kentucky.

The right wing regressives in America will find any excuse to cower to the dirty energy cartels.

Coal actually COSTS Kentucky taxpayers more than they take in cowering to big coal








The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the worlds approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentuckys state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentuckys revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

*Coal and the Budget*

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coals costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industrys fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).






*Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. *The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industrys impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I was wondering, Toadsterretard, just when were you declared officially braindead?

*Government Funding and Loans for Coal Plants and Infrastructure*
(excerpts)

*A 2010 report by Synapse Energy Economics, "Phasing Out Federal Subsidies for Coal" found the U.S. federal government provides billions of dollars in subsidies for the coal industry. The report was written by Lucy Johnston (Synapse Energy Economics), Lisa Hamilton (Rockefeller Family Fund), Mark Kresowik (Sierra Club), Tom Sanzillo (TR Rose Associates), and David Schlissel (Schlissel Technical Consulting) and was released on April 13, 2010.

The report identifies four major areas where taxpayer money continues to fund the construction, expansion, and life extension of coal-fired power plants, thus acting as federal coal subsidies:

1)    Financial support for the World Bank and other international financial institutions that finance fossil fuel use and extraction;
2)    U.S. Treasury Departments backing of tax exempt bonds and Build America Bonds for use in the electric sector;
3)    U.S. Department of Agricultures Rural Utilities Service provision of loans, loan guarantees and lien accommodations to power companies that are investing in new or existing coal plants;
4)    Tax credits, loans and loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Energy *


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
> .



How can you not know this?


Coal power in the United States accounted for 42% of the country's electricity production in 2011.[1] Utilities buy more than 90 percent of the coal mined in the United States.[2]

In 2009, there were 1436 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with the total nominal capacity of 338.732 GW[3] (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000).

Coal power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...






Now the only thing left is to make the connection between the warming and the CO2 and explain how CO2 works within the climate system and why it seems to be such a weak forcer.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously the only solution is to give government even more control over our economy.
> ...





I think he's talking about the recommendations to implement Cap and Trade and all of the other Carbon Credit schemes.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > This is happening everywhere the government gives taxpayers money to a green energy firm.
> ...





If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.

Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.

The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...






Can you produce a link to your examples?  There must be plenty.  You talk about them all the time.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You idiotic denier cultists cling to your propaganda driven myths no matter how many times both you and your myths are shown to be full of BS. The hockey stick graph, far from being "_proven a fraud_", has been verified and independently reproduced by numerous other climate scientists using different proxy data and different statistical methods. In spite of the denier cult's moronic denial of the facts, there really is an unprecedented abrupt warming trend in the latter part of the twentieth century that exceeds the limits of natural variation. This fact manifests as the observed melting of the Arctic ice cap, the Greenland ice sheets, West Antarctica, and the mountain glaciers of the world, the changing of seasonal timing, species migration, an increase in the rate of sea level rise, warming oceans, and numerous other physical evidence.

*Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong *

*False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction*

*Hockey stick or hockey league?*
(excerpts)





*Figure 1: Human carbon dioxide emissions, measured in million metric tonnes of carbon (CDIAC).*
*The dramatic increase in CO2 emissions is matched by a steep rise in  atmospheric CO2 levels. CO2 levels have risen around 40% since pre-industrial levels and currently sit at around 396 parts per million, a level unseen for at least 15 million years (Tripati 2009).*




*Figure 2: Atmospheric CO2 concentration. (Green - Law Dome, East Antarctica and Purple - Mauna Loa, Hawaii).*

*Climate forcing is a change in the planet&#8217;s energy balance - when our climate builds up or loses heat. There are various climate forcings that drive global temperature change - variations in solar output, aerosol levels and carbon dioxide have been the major drivers of long-term climate change over the last 1000 years. The combined climate forcing from these effects shows a familiar shape.*




*Figure 3: Combined radiative forcing from solar variations, carbon dioxide and aerosols - volcanoes are omitted (Crowley 2000).
*
*The increase in positive climate forcing means our climate has been building up heat in recent times. Consequently, we see the corresponding shape in Northern Hemisphere land temperature:*




*Figure 4: Northern hemisphere temperature reconstruction (Moberg et al 2005) plus a 5 year average of instrumental measurements of northern hemisphere land temperature (CRUTemp).*

*Over the last decade, a number of independent studies have reconstructed temperature over the last 1000 years, using a multitude of different proxy data and various data analysis techniques. They all tell a similar story.*




*Figure 5: Various northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions (Mann et al 2008).*

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_


----------



## Dot Com (May 28, 2012)

good post & I like your siggie too


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



*Dishonest obfuscation.*

Do you honestly believe "_their billion dollar industries are not regulated_"?

*Do you believe that oil, coal and auto industries are merely benign observers sitting on the sidelines or actively spreading propaganda that makes them billions of dollars?*


Propaganda? Please explain further.
I believe that our government has so much power that any industry that wants to survive is forced to lobby and advertise in its own defense. Wasting money that would be better spent on research and development.

Do you want to eliminate the coal and oil industries? What about nuclear?
Or do you just want to make their products so expensive that nobody uses them?
Please explain what you believe.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.
> 
> Allocatting billions to be squandered at the Federal level is an exercise in pay offs, graft and corruption.
> 
> The closer the subsidizers are to the subsidized, the lower the chances that corruption will occur.



No one supports grafts and corruption, but I don't see they occur only in wind or in coal or in nuclear...realistically there can always be some corruption in the energy sector. I'm not defending grants that are made recklessly, but I am saying that not funding renewables does not mean an end to corruption. 

All new industries require R&D, and if that R&D pays off, the return is made in jobs and export dollars. 

Scotland is looking to close a sale to New Zealand of around 200 x $10 million for tidal turbines. Pus maintenance. 

So that is $2,000,000,000 that is headed into Scotland's coffers and not into the US - and all because Scotland got into the field early and got it's research right. 

And how effective are they?

The pilot showed that New Zealand could, in optimal conditions, produce 1.5 times its TOTAL electricity demand from the one project. (The opimtal is more statistical than practical - but you get the point)

So Todd doesn't want a bar of these silly industries....and Scotland says thank you America!


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Todd - 

Rather than just pretend you didn't see the 2 or 3 posts which told you about the money the US pours into the coal industry - why not be honest and admit that your initial point wasn't correct?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the government giving money to a coal firm?
> ...



We use coal. That doesn't prove your earlier claim.
Obama wants to drive coal out of business. 
He'd prefer to give money to uneconomical "green" energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Loans? Loans that get repaid?
Doesn't sound like the government is giving them money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.
> ...



Scotland is welcome.
If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.
> ...





Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.

As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Scotland is welcome.
> If you've got some renewable energy generation ideas that actually make sense without ridiculous money wasting subsidies, I'd be interested in hearing about them.
> I guess that leaves out Solyndra and many other Obama boondogles.



Well, you have to be careful to actually perform objective financial and technological analyses, which can be difficult with as much politicized distortion and rhetoric as gets thrown around about such issues. Solyndra is a case in point in this regard. There are so many lies and distortions in the mainstream media (not to mention the blogosphere) that this can be a tedious process. 

For instance:
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Oversight/091411/Silver.pdf - "The 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submissions. The loan program staff and others at the department reviewed those for eligibility, which is a thinner review than the full due diligence, and recommended 16 applications to file a full application. A dozen did so. Solyndra was one of those. And the department conducted due diligence on all of those 11." - Solyndra was approved and given the initial go ahead approval by the Bush administration back many years before Barry even began campaigning for president.

Now, I'm sure that there are political threads where this discussion would be more appropriate, and I don't want to derail this thread into a thorough discussion of those politics, so I feel there is more fruit in the focus on what companies like this did wrong rather than trying to wrestle with sorting fact from political connivance. 

Solyndra, according to the financial experts I've read, was more a victim of bad timing, a devastated general economy, and a sluggish recovery that still feels like recession to many Americans. Though the other solar company startup loans made at the same time as Solyndra are actually still running and turning a profit, China's fully subsidized solar panel industry is rapidly gobbling up the global market and it is going to be more difficult than many anticipated early on to profittably counter their advances and market dominance as long as the Chinese government sees such developments as low risk and profittable. Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost, their failure is not due to technological flaw or conceptual mistake.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.
> 
> As long as the EPA is dominated by the Environmental extremists, there will be no progress in a meaningful way toward any rational solutions.



Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues? 

please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > If it is a proven technology, then guaranteeing a loan would be a prudent thing for the benefitting local government to do.
> ...


You gonna answer my question, or continue to run away, Sir Robin?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Scotland is welcome.
> ...



*Technologically, Solyndra, produces a high quality prodict at a reasonable cost*

And yet, not good enough or reasonable enough to produce a profit.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Or stay in business.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



BULLSHIT! The coal industry has OWNED local, county and state judges for generations. Where do you think the term 'company town' came from?

The relative freedom of the West Virginia miners was quickly overshadowed as industries began to exhibit more and more control over the region. Soon company towns dominated the coalfields, and miners had no choice but to live in them. Every aspect of a miners life was controlled by what existed for him in the operator-owned town. Only paid in company script, miners had no choice but to shop at the company store, which greatly inflated prices in order to compensate for wage increases. Towns were unsanitary and lacked any kind of central political structure. Important information on voting and politics were withheld from miners, and the company post-master routinely scrutinized thier mail. Operators controlled every aspect of the town and ruled unjustly and often times violently. When population and discontent began to rise in company towns, operators installed private police-like guards who patrolled the streets and instituted their own brand of martial law.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Scotland really needs to thank the US Environmentalists who continuously block the attempts to do anything, including tidal, that might change anything, particularly their view.
> ...






The fact of the government is that if any agency is given an 8% increase in funds, that agency will double in size in 10 years.  This is what has happened to the EPA and virtually all of the agencies in DC.

It's insanity.  That many motivated do-gooders are sure to create mischief as they strive to assure that a snail darter or a desert lizard is not adversely affected by people trying to make a living. 


EPA Regulations Cause Drought in California - WSJ.com

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark? | RedState

Weekly Standard: Protect Lizards And Endanger Jobs : NPR


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





Is this a story of the good ol' days or is this happening right now?


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The panels were profittable, they merely were not able to compete with the fully subsidized Chinese industry in the international market place during the current global economic doldrums. Additionally, the leadership of Solyndra apparently made several poor business decisions, but none of this reflects on the basic technologies or alternative power concepts, it merely speaks to timing issues in the financial cycle and the business accumen of the company's administrators.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



*The panels were profittable,*

Obviously they were not.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



A rather entertaining dance, but it doesn't address the questions posed. Please support your previous assertion and answer the questions asked:



> Extremist? as opposed to the mainstream science understandings with regards to environmental issues?
> 
> please list those EPA personnel you consider environmental extremists and what specific points of view they hold that, in your consideration, make them extremist (preferably with quotes and references to substantiate their extremist positions).


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Scientists have done that quite thoroughly. You are just too much of a brainwashed moron to comprehend that. CO2 is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. Mankind has raised CO2 levels about 40% over pre-industrial levels and that extra CO2 is mostly responsible for the abrupt warming trend of the last 60 years. Those facts have been scientifically determined and verified. Those facts are very inconvenient for your puppet masters in the fossil fuel industry because they threaten the trillion dollar a year profit flow that industry is currently enjoying. So those greedy mo-fo's propagandize scientifically ignorant people like you to create doubt about the very real scientific facts of the matter and delay any effective collective action to place the necessary limits on carbon emissions. Just like the tobacco companies used twisted and phony 'science' to delay public recognition that smoking tobacco causes a whole lot of serious health problems, some of them life threatening, and thereby delayed for years the appropriate governmental actions to regulate and tax tobacco sales. Those regulatory actions eventually resulted in a reduction in the cancer and other disease rates associated with smoking and cut the number of smokers considerably. So too now are the fossil fuel companies and vested interests (oil billionaires like the Koch brothers, etc.) trying to delay the very necessary and appropriate governmental and international actions to regulate and tax carbon emissions in order to move the world off of fossil fuels and onto non-carbon emitting energy sources. This move to renewables is vital to the future of our world ecology, our civilization and future generations. It is too bad you and the rest of the deniers are too bamboozled and confused to realize this.


----------



## Trakar (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The panels were profittable,*
> 
> Obviously they were not.



Upon what do you base this conclusion? 

Businesses fail for a variety of reasons, in the case of Solyndra the business failure was not due to the lack of a quality product or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production (profit).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The panels were profittable,*
> ...



Based on the fact they went bankrupt.
You understand what that means?

*or the the inability to produce and provide that product at a price that earned more than the costs of production *

You mean they earned more than the cost of production and still failed?
Please explain further.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Solyndra made a good deal of money.  Ours.


----------



## saveliberty (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The panels were profittable,*
> ...



Solyndra was not the low cost producer.  If they could have broke even, they should have been $585 million ahead with the governemnt cash infusion.  Lies upon lies.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






When it comes to beaureuctatic people, there is no need to have names or to have identities.  They all operate as drones doing what they would do if they we insects in a hive.

The three links above were found in about a 2 minute search.  I'm sure if i knew where to look, i could find plenty and they would be more damning yet.

More insidious than these, though, are the many regulations that exist "just in case".  This is not just true of the EPA but of all beauracracies that have a many people who do nothing all day long outside of simply justifying their jobs.  The result of attorneys and lobbyists just doing what they do and creating what they create absent any rational overview of the reasonable.

Al McGartland is a good candidate to fit the bill on you name the names thing, though.

When you add a guy like Mr. McGartland to the rest of the drones, you get things like this:

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.  
<snip>


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





With all of that science to back you up, you should be able to produce a prediction of climate activity from 30 years ago that is accurate.

How about 15 years ago?

Whataya got?


----------



## saveliberty (May 28, 2012)

Not much chance of a report like that getting peer reviewed.


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The panels were profittable,*
> ...





If they were profitable, they would have produced a profit.  What is the secret code you're using to write this stuff?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Progressive speak?


----------



## code1211 (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



That's where libs -- claiming to be something other than libs -- say stuff that gets *progressively* further and further away from the truth every time they speak.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Plenty.

Dr. Jim Hansen. A paper with several very accurate predictions, in spite of his caveats about the state of knowledge at that time. *

28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511      Science

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

Why do the radicals always change the subject back to science...............as if it mattered??


Whats up with that?



Oh.......ya know >>*smacks self in head*<<.........I sometimes forget we are having discussions with people from the far, far left.


Carry on s0ns...............


----------



## skookerasbil (May 28, 2012)

*Nobody*




*cares*




*about*



*the*



*data*


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I find it insulting that you think that reasonably well informed people can have their opinions 'bought'. how exactly does that happen? did I miss out on the cheques?

I understand the evidence for AGW and find it very thin. the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic. feedbacks are not positive, they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system. the predictions of doom are just a way to make people feel guilty so they wont complain when they are taxed and regulated.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades. 

Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2012)

Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left.  They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



would you care to put up the loss of ice in glaciers and the Arctic from 1850-1900 up against 1950-2010? the people investigating the methane release put the reasons on conditions present 600-800 years ago. there has been no increase in extreme weather events in the last few decades. go back and read a newspaper from anytime in recorded history. and of course insurance companies say they are paying out more money now than in the past, things are more expensive and people are living and building in areas that have more risk.

you call me fruitloops but I know that you are gullible.


----------



## IanC (May 28, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left.  They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.



his wife is a professor or something. the academic world is full of people that believe whatever they think is true simply because they say so.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 28, 2012)

A "PhuD" candidate, nothing more.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2012)

IanC said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....you are such a great example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

"_I find it insulting_" - TS
"_reasonably well informed people_" - you are so far from being "_well informed_", it's not even in radar range of you.
"_can have their opinions 'bought'_" - you poor retard - they 'buy' your opinions by hiring clever propagandists to play on your prejudices and ignorance.
"_how exactly does that happen?_" - oooooh, that's easy......

*US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'*
The Guardian
 John Vidal
30 March 2010
(excerpts)

*A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe. The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels. Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.*

*Climate Cover-Up
The Crusade to Deny Global Warming*
(excerpts)

*Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industrys own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation.

The success of those plans is self-evident. A Yale/George Mason University poll taken late in 2008 showed that  20 years after President George H.W. Bush promised to beat the greenhouse effect with the White House effect  a clear majority of Americans still say they either doubt the science of climate change or they just dont know. Climate Cover-Up explains why they dont know. Tracking the global warming denial movement from its inception, public relations advisor James Hoggan (working with journalist Richard Littlemore), reveals the details of those early plans and then tracks their execution, naming names and exposing tactics in what has become a full-blown attack on the integrity of the public conversation.*
*
Climate change denial*


"_I understand the evidence for AGW_" - no, you poor deluded retard, you have made it very, very obvious that you don't even begin to understand the evidence for AGW....your delusion that you do is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect biting you in the butt again.
"_and find it very thin_" - it is your mental powers that are pretty "_thin_"....the mountains of evidence supporting AGW have been more than sufficient to convince every scientific organization, society, institute and university in the world as well as virtually all of the climate scientists of the reality and seriousness of AGW.
"_the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic_" - it hasn't been too catastrophic so far, you short sighted fool, but it will get increasingly catastrophic as this century goes on and the warming, climate changes and sea level rising will continue for centuries. The world still has some choice about how bad it will eventually get, but it is indeed going to be quite catastrophic, as the world scientific community is affirming.
"_feedbacks are not positive_" - that's one of your idiotic and fraudulent denier cult myths but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a number of positive feedbacks such as the loss of Arctic ice cover caused by AGW that is itself causing more warming as the ice that reflects 90% of the sun's energy back out into space is replaced by dark ocean or land that absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy. The release of locked up methane from under the fast melting 'perma-frost' or from the methane hydrates on the ocean floor is one of the most dangerous positive feedbacks.
"_they are most likely negative just like every other natural earth system_" - your suppositions are based only on your own ignorance and the propaganda you've absorbed, you clueless retard. Anthropogenic global warming is not a "_natural_" part of the Earth's climate processes.
"_the predictions of doom_" - are the scientifically based warnings of the top experts in many fields of science connected to the Earth's climate. Your willingness to ignore and discount these warnings for the sake of politics or your own wallet is a good indication of just what a blind, deluded idiot you are.


----------



## Saigon (May 28, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left.  They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.



Wheras you hide behind small names and lunatic blogs, but don't give a fuck about truth. 

It does entertain the hell out of me that skeptics talk so passionately about science and truth - while presenting an argument virtually no scientists accept.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 1000+ that refute your 800.  What about those?  You are conspicuously silent on those.
> ...







Care to make a wager on that?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the vast majority of papers are simply collections of data that can, and have been, used by both sides. until 2000 the paradigm was that the medieval warm period was real and warmer than today. people have noticed, and measured, the glacier and icecap retreat for more than 150 years. sea level rise has been documented for over 100 years and it has remained steady at ~2mm/year. thermometers have have recorded temps for the last 150 years but it has only been the one-sided adjustments of the last 12 years that have made the increase look disproportionate.
> ...







And if you look at the historical record you see that none of what you witnessed is different from what has happened in the past.  In fact 50 or more years ago there was much more damage and death recorded.  Look up 1632 and the Great Drowning of men for instance.  Feel free to plug in any year from 1900 to 1700 and look at all the weather disasters that happened EVERY YEAR.

We are actually experiencing less damage and death then at almost any other period of mans history.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Still trying to blow smoke up everyone's butt, eh walleyed? How much do they pay you to spread their lies? Or are you really that stupid and clueless?

*Climate Change Influences Disaster Trends*
(excerpt)

*According to Munich Re data (9.5MB PDF), the frequency of weather-related catastrophes such as windstorms and floods has increased six-fold since the 1950s
*


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.


You are exceptionally clueless and obviously don't even know the meaning of the word 'climate' or how it differs from 'weather', so your moronic and very ignorant comments are what is really laughable.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change happens every moment, blaming it on human intervention is laughable.
> ...



I accomplished EXACTLY what I wanted to do. Get a Liberal's panties in a knot... Thanks for playing.


----------



## Saigon (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> And if you look at the historical record you see that none of what you witnessed is different from what has happened in the past.  In fact 50 or more years ago there was much more damage and death recorded.  Look up 1632 and the Great Drowning of men for instance.  Feel free to plug in any year from 1900 to 1700 and look at all the weather disasters that happened EVERY YEAR.



Less people are killed by storms today because we have better construction standards, we have better abilities to predict and track major storms and floods, and we are now more able to avoid building on land prone to subsidance or flood. 

This has little to do with climate.

This image shows the number of weather systems record per year in the US. Note the trend is slightly upwards from around 1945. Note how many of the peak years fall within the past decade. 






Tropical Cyclone Climatology


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left. They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.
> ...


Hide? I showcase basic logic and ignore appeals to authority when it disagrees with logic or common sense without merit as to why.

You gonna man up and answer an elementary question?

How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?

Or are you gonna keep running like a pussy?


----------



## Saigon (May 29, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?



The reason I haven't answered this before is because I can not believe any even vaguely interested in this topic can't answer it for themselves. 

'Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.'

The IPCC explains... Human & Natural Causes of Climate Change | Climate System | Cause and Effect

Note the word 'accumulate'. 

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere *is approximately 392 ppm* (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 20002009. [1][2] The concentration increase with respect to *pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm *has grown roughly exponentially.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I really hope you will step back from the politics and actual try and consider this with an open mind.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2012)

Ummm........since many on this thread appear to have some pronounced ADHD, thought I'd bring the thread back to topic................after 13 or 14 pages of utter crap, thought it'd be a good idea.


Green energy jobs far short of Obama goal | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


The title of the article should say, "Far......far.........far..........far.........far short.............."




*16,000 instead of 5 million.*



Let me tell you something............we have alot of fucking morons on this thread.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2012)

OK.......now Im really laughing my balls off................

A study from Yale............just the title blows this thread up with a nuclear bomb. Wont matter to the k00ks though................


Yale Study Concludes Public Apathy over Climate Change Unrelated to Science Literacy | Yale Law School












more winning.....................


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

tjvh said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



You simply demonstrated that you are another willfully ignorant fool.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How does man's contribution to 0.0024% of atmospheric composition control climate when there are so many other stronger contributing factors?
> ...


The IPCC has already admitted to not checking data handed to them by activists who got their from anecdotal evidence based on Ice Climbing guides OPINIONS in the Himelayas.

Your authority has failed you.

And not to mention even THEY can't show why a 0.0024% increase in atmospheric composition from a MINOR greenhouse gas controls the entire world climate. It's less than a rounding error when you run the numbers based on tons present in the atmosphere versus man's yearly input.

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

Love this sentence:



> Such a deception could only have gone on as long and far as it has because of the cultural cover provided by contemporary Western elites who have embraced environmentalism as the new secular religion.


 
You prove it absolutely true that this is your religion.

Then you dig into why this blog has merit:

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | Full Comment | National Post

Which is evidenced by this found on page 10-11.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

Damning excerpt:



> Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a &#8216;scientific consensus&#8217; around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of &#8216;truth creation&#8217; (or the more nuanced &#8216;knowledge production&#8217 which marginalises dissenting voices &#8211; as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC&#8217;s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) &#8211; does not do justice to the process.


 
More fun to kill off your hero worship of authorative figures who do not deserve it. From the same report:



> _The function of climate change I suggest, is not as a lower-case environmental phenomenon to be solved. Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be &#8216;solving&#8217;the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. *It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change &#8211; the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and materials flows that climate change reveals &#8211; to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come.*"_


 
Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online



> The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
> Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
> In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report&#8217;s chapter on Asia, said: &#8216;It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action


 
Follow the money and the power. What power? To change government policy to how they feel the world SHOULD work. If you think this is a manufactured statement, here's the screen shot of the original report.

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers | Watts Up With That?

In March 2000, 'Scientists' (obviously part of the consensus) claimed this.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Why should I trust your petty failed gawds of political science instead of basic mathematics and observation any CHILD can do accurately?

Also, I expect you to not even bother to read these, and will probably discredit it out of hand just like every other bit of information that disrupts your nice pre-conclusions.


----------



## Saigon (May 29, 2012)

Fitz - 

So you apparently have no problems with the actual science presented, then?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> So you apparently have no problems with the actual science presented, then?


Answer the question.

How is it that an additional 0.0024% of the atmospheric composition by man controls it all?  Is this CO2 the one true ring or something?  Magic CO2?


----------



## Saigon (May 29, 2012)

Fitz - 

It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again. 

If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> "_I understand the evidence for AGW_" - no, you poor deluded retard, you have made it very, very obvious that you don't even begin to understand the evidence for AGW....your delusion that you do is just the Dunning-Kruger Effect biting you in the butt again.
> "_and find it very thin_" - it is your mental powers that are pretty "_thin_"....the mountains of evidence supporting AGW have been more than sufficient to convince every scientific organization, society, institute and university in the world as well as virtually all of the climate scientists of the reality and seriousness of AGW.
> "_the small amount of warming caused by CO2 is not catastrophic_" - it hasn't been too catastrophic so far, you short sighted fool, but it will get increasingly catastrophic as this century goes on and the warming, climate changes and sea level rising will continue for centuries. The world still has some choice about how bad it will eventually get, but it is indeed going to be quite catastrophic, as the world scientific community is affirming.
> "_feedbacks are not positive_" - that's one of your idiotic and fraudulent denier cult myths but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a number of positive feedbacks such as the loss of Arctic ice cover caused by AGW that is itself causing more warming as the ice that reflects 90% of the sun's energy back out into space is replaced by dark ocean or land that absorbs about 90% of the sun's energy. The release of locked up methane from under the fast melting 'perma-frost' or from the methane hydrates on the ocean floor is one of the most dangerous positive feedbacks.
> ...




I think it is funny that you keep bringing up the D-K effect, never dreaming that it is you that is talking about.

you did bring up an interesting topic though. ice has a much higher albedo than open water. it sounds very _reasonable_ that less ice would mean more warming. is it true and to what extent?

the arctic goes from long days to long nights. the ice melts during daylight, reforms in the darkness. when the melt season starts the sun is high but there is also the most ice. by the end of the melt season the sun is low and even what little  sunshine is left tends to be reflected off the surface of the water. all in all, more warming, but not as much as implied because the difference in ice area is very little when the sun is high and the effect is very small when there is less ice.

but is there anything else to consider? ice is a good insulator. there is little heat transfer from ocean to air when there is ice in between. but open water happily gives off heat. the arctic quickly cools down once the sun is gone but the liquid ocean keeps giving off heat until it is insulated by ice.

so the question is this. is the extra sunlight absorbed during the weak sunset fully or only partially offset by the extra heat loss from the extra open water? as usual nature has a negative feedback for disturbances to the system.

a coupla years back the climate models showed that even starting from an input of a totally ice free arctic that the ice would soon build back up again.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.
> 
> If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.


Your post where you answered is where?  I haven't found it in this thread.


----------



## Saigon (May 29, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Your post where you answered is where?  I haven't found it in this thread.



Oh, I'm sure you haven't. 

I dare say anyone genuinely interested will have found it fairly easily though - I only posted it a few hours ago. It's #490.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.
> 
> If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.


 


Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Your post where you answered is where? I haven't found it in this thread.
> ...


 
YOU posted YOUR answer "In detail" a few hours ago? 

Huh. When'd you delete it then? Or did you answer via sock? I don't see it and I went all the way back to Sunday looking at every post you did.  Or did you mean DAYS ago?

So, how is it again that 0.0024% of atmospheric content produced by man is controling the world climate? How is this greater than the impact of nature, the sun, other more powerful greenhouse gases we "don't control" and can't measure accurately?

You cower behind the skirts of intellectual frauds pretending their title and appointment give them the ability to pronounce fact against evidence.

And now a documented liar in of yourself.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







They were?  Si prices plummeted (given as the reason they failed, why that is I have no idea, if their product was so much better that fact shouldn't have mattered), they were heavily subsidised by OUR government (or didn't you read about the half billion they were given?), their claimed efficiency levels were 12-14 percent, only slightly better than their competitors though they did claim that if installed on a white roof their efficiency jumped to 20%, something I have never, ever been able to confirm.  There simply is no support for their claim, none.

You did get one thing correct however, the management of the company was incredibly bad.  What planet they were raised on I have no idea but i doubt it was this one.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Correlation does not equal causation!
The fact that the temps have stalled in the face of ever rising CO2 levels would is further proof of the complete lack of evidence for AGW.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







  Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than Hansen you fool.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fitz -
> ...



BigFritz, you are a total retard. He told you the number of the post he is referring to and you still can't find it. That is unbelievably stupid. As are all of your worthless and moronic posts. You imagine that because you can't understand something then nobody can, but in reality you're just too much of an ignorant idiot to understand something like the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Let's see, millions on the side of sceptics and BILLIONS on your side.   Which number is bigger?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it looks like Saigon's yet another intellectual coward on the left.  They want to hide behind big names and fancy titles, but don't give a fuck about truth.
> ...








Wrong again.  _Climatologists_ won't accept it.  That's because they make more money on alarmism then on truth.  They have been making predictions for thirty years now and havn't been right once.  Sylvia Brown is more accurate and she's a well known charlatan!  

So on one side you have a charlatan with around a 60% accuracy rate and climatologists with zero.

And you believe them why?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


He probably is making bank on these predictions too. Or expecting a cabinet post or government job any day now because of it.  It can't be because he's that big of a sucker.  Nope nope.


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

They believe the climatologists because they have "programmed" to by their handlers.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> It has been answered, and in considerable detail. I'm not answering it again.
> 
> If you aren't interested in looking into the info provided because it was produced by the evil IIPC, that's fine with me.







No, it hasn't.  All your little links do is trot out that old cannard of correlation equals causation which if you were a scientist would know is not true.  Only in the minds of climatologists does that seem to be a fact.  Yet more evidence of the pseudo scientific nature of that field.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






Oh, some of them are definitley suckers like that.  trakar though really reminds me of that dipshit Gleick.  Two stupid unethical peas in a pod.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Retarded dogs could cheat you at cards, walleyed, you poor deluded cretin.

And of course, as usual, you're completely clueless about the real world. Your denier cult myths, like the ones about Dr. Hansen's work, are, as always, utter BS. Most of the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made have come to pass or are happening now. He is an eminent scientist, honored and respected by his peers. 

*James Hansen*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Honors and awards

Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72]

In 2007, Hansen shared the US $1 million Dan David Prize for "achievements having an outstanding scientific, technological, cultural or social impact on our world". In 2008, he received the PNC Bank Common Wealth Award of Distinguished Service for his "outstanding achievements" in science. At the end of 2008, Hansen was named by EarthSky Communications and a panel of 600 scientist-advisors as the Scientist Communicator of the Year, citing him as an "outspoken authority on climate change" who had "best communicated with the public about vital science issues or concepts during 2008."[73]

In 2009, Hansen was awarded the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal,[73] the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his "outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena."[74]

Hansen won the 2010 Sophie Prize, set up in 1997 by Norwegian Jostein Gaarder, the author of the 1991 best-selling novel and teenagers' guide to philosophy "Sophie's World",[75] for his " key role for the development of our understanding of human-induced climate change."
*


----------



## Oddball (May 29, 2012)

From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?


----------



## tjvh (May 29, 2012)

Oddball said:


> From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?



Ohhhhh, I thought you were talking about "Jim Hensen"... I see you meant "Jim Hansen". Well I suppose they are both highly skilled puppeteers. One makes a puppet, the other IS a puppet.


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

I know that no one is interested in actual politics in global warming but here is an interesting interview about the difficulties of getting a non-consensus paper published.



> But the physical scientists do not respect the NO TRESPASSING sign. They are dominating the debate and many climate scientists think they have the prerogative to make political suggestions which society at large should take up because scientists always know best. And politicians and the media play along. Even some sociologists think we should suspend our critical faculties and leave our constructivist toolbox closed, and just &#8220;follow the climate scientists&#8221;. This is most unfortunate.
> 
> However, when it comes to practical solutions, climate science has little to offer. Social, political and cultural responses to the challenge of climate change are often determined by scientists and engineers who have no special knowledge base when it comes to making suggestions. Instead they theorize their own common sense about how they think society and politics operate. Often they are naive, wrong, or both. But social scientists have been colluding in this game by granting scientists the prerogative of defining the situation and offering solutions. So if one wanted expertise for climate policy, more social science would be needed. Having said that, no amount of expertise will solve the problem of climate change, which is a long term issue and requires public involvement and debate on a much larger scale than witnessed so far.


Die Klimazwiebel: Interview Reiner Grundmann

I suppose there are some who will dismiss any testimony that doesnt fit their worldview of stallward scientists upholding the sanctity of the scientific method but the evidence is certainly there in the climategate emails and other places.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It's not so easy, going Green (oh btw, kermit's "green" song is an absolute rip off of Jobim's "Dindi")


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



Oil production in the US peaked in the 1970s.  It has been going down, since.  

This was always going to be the case.  Alcoholic beverages and stills were banned in the Constitution, 1918, which was really directed, against possible brewing of alcohol, as fuel.  When Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel both advocated hemp alcohol for their engines, and Ford made a great, indestructible hemp-plastic, The Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938 was inevitable.  When this was declared unconstitutional in 1972, Nixon founded the DEA.  Democrats and Republicans oppose legal hemp, Canada legalized it and has a hemp-corn surplus, but Canada exports petroleum, so a lot of hemp products will not come from down north.

Democrats passed Obamacare, lost the House, and THEN they tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012.  Ds and Rs both get PAC money, from petroleum and nuclear special interests.  Expect them to trash us and the planet.

Meanwhile, carbonic acid is building up, in oceans and on land.  Die-offs from acid are allover the world, check YouTube for acidification vids.  We can lose the food chain, oceans first, then see the bees?  They are dying from pesticides, but I suspect carbonic acid plays a part.  When they go, no more orchard crops.

Fracking continues, while Ds and Rs spank each other, in a circle.  

Science which will not catch up with Henry Ford or Rudi Diesel is not modern.  Science which hides how carbonic acid is the busiest killer, related to accelerating AGW is not good science.  Science is corrupted because crime pays, Ds and Rs are getting some of the profiteering, and nobody is leading, to re-greening waters and lands.

We can die, from neglect of science, or from too much science, but not enough smarts, in perpetrators who like to manufacture nuclear gear, like generators and ammunition.  All this killer gear gets around, without anybody with brains dodging the zombies, to take charge, to make sure we re-green.  Mass extinction event 6 looms, while much of the science is junk media, sorting the garbage-input, leading to garbage output.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Oddball said:


> From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?



*Where did you get your degree in stupidity?*

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]

[edit] Research and publications

As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[3]
................................................................................................................
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Hansen published several papers on the planet Venus following his Ph.D. dissertation. Venus has a high brightness temperature in the radio frequencies compared to the infrared. Hansen proposed that the hot surface was the result of aerosols trapping the internal energy of the planet.[4] More recent studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus's atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.[5]
........................................................................................................................
Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."[70] In 2001, he received the 7th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment (endowed with US$250,000) for his research on global warming,[71] and was listed as one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2006. Also in 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) selected James Hansen to receive their Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility "for his courageous and steadfast advocacy in support of scientists' responsibilities to communicate their scientific opinions and findings openly and honestly on matters of public importance."[72


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

Hansen has clearly crossed over the line from physicist to fanatical prosthletizer.

is it sadly reminiscent of Linus Pauling's preoccupation with vitamin C at the end of his life.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Oh, I see!  In your world, a prediction is a statrement of what happened before.

Can you _predict _who will win Superbowl I?

A prediction is a statement of what will happen AFTER the prediction is made.

Try again and please produce a prediction and not a historical recap.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Again, there is warming and there is CO2 increase.  The CO2 rises and the temperature rises.  The CO2 rises and the temperature drops.  The CO2 rises and the temperaure stays the same.  CO2 must be stupid.  I just won't do the same thing two days ina row.

While the climate apparently can't be predicted, the Warmers activities can.

This from a group asserting that the Japan Earthquake was the result of Global Warming.

You really can't make this crap up.

A link between Japan&rsquo;s earthquake and global warming? - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

<snip>
Friday, the day an 8.9 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Honshu, the president of the European Unions Economic and Social Committee released this puzzling statement: 

The earthquake and tsunami will clearly have a severe impact on the economic and social activities of the region. Some islands affected by climate change have been hit. Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity  not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming? Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do.
<snip>


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...


Looks like we have another Olufraudi Peaker in the house.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...



Peak Oil

LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

It was warmer in the USA in the 30's and supposedly it's the warmest it's ever been; therefore, Democrat controlled Congress causes Global Warming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2012)

Oh, Peak Oil LOL


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...




Big Fitz bro..........gotta come on over here and join the party more often. The bomb throwing gets better and better.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2012)

The radical environmentalist guys are doing it again.............changing the subject!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

I have a short fuse and shorter temper with these assholes when they think high falutin titles make fact while 8th grade earth science is false.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> The radical environmentalist guys are doing it again.............changing the subject!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKZNEugVQlk]Kung Fu Hustle - My Ass - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Why not post his prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts today's climate based on his theories regarding the growth of CO2?


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?
> ...





So.....

What you're saying is that he has no credentials to support his expertise in Climatology.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > From which college did Hansen get his degree in climatology?
> ...








Hansen has no degree in climatology, thus by your definition he is unqualified to speak on those matters.  Probably a good idea as his hit rate is less than that charlatan Brown.  How does that feel, you know...to follow somone who is less accurate (by orders of magnitude) than a charlatan?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...







I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate.  We have CONSENSUS!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Okey-dokey, code4stupid, here ya go.

*J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, vol. 213, 1981, pp. 957-966. DOI*

Fig.6 (from the paper) gives a projection for the global mean temperature up to 2100. In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, but Hansen and his colleagues confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions. Their graph assumes that that the world would start taking some actions to deal with this situation starting in the late 1990s, so they modeled the results of several different energy-use scenarios.






Looking back at the actual temperature record since 1981 (in red) reveals that Hansen slightly underestimated the rise in temperatures.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate.  We have CONSENSUS!



ROTFLMAO.....a 'consensus' of clueless retards.....how incredibly amusing.....


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Sooooo CO2 has more than doubled his prediction and the temps havn't reached even his lowest guestimate.  In fact he's 300% off on his guess.  And you think that's good?  Sylvia Brown has a better track record than that and she's a well known charlatan.

How do you explain that?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have peer reviewed this and find it 100% accurate.  We have CONSENSUS!
> ...








Yes, it is.  So kind of you to notice


----------



## IanC (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



a 30+ year old paper written back in the cooling scare huh? perhaps Hansen was a better scientist 35 years ago. care to explain his last few graphs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, *

OMG! This must be the first time in human history that glaciers have retreated. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Www! Look at all that money and all those awards.
Who says exaggerating doesn't pay?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 29, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Off topic s0n.............changing the subject is like a tick for the environmental nutters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*In 1981 the northern hemisphere was cooling somewhat and the average global temperature was lower than the average temperatures of the early 1940s, *

Impossible! CO2 was higher in 1981 than in the early 1940s!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Now if you were not such a willfully ignorant ass, you would know that cause of that. Referance Hansen's Faustian Bargain.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Nooooo clueless retard, temperatures have exceeded his upper prediction. That's the line in red on the second graph. True to form, you once again get everything bass ackwards.





westwall said:


> In fact he's 300% off on his guess.


In fact, he underestimated the current warming by 30%. It is a wonder that you can even tie your shoes, walleyedretard. Maybe you wear loafers.






westwall said:


> And you think that's good?


Yes, Dr. Hansen's track record on climate change predictions is quite good. 






westwall said:


> How do you explain that?


The same way I explain all of your worthless, mistaken, lying posts - you are a clueless, ignorant, flaming retard and you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Or possibly, alternatively, you're a paid agent of disinformation getting a check from Exxon to spread propaganda and lies.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Gee...Must need a degree in stupidity to figure out that one!


----------



## Bfgrn (May 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...












*Did You Know?*


50% of the counties in Central Appalachia have only one hospital and about 1 in 5 do not have a hospital at all


On average, 20% of the people in the region live below the poverty line (the current national poverty rate for a family of four is $20,650 a year, i.e. $1,720 a month)


The first shipment of coal out of Central Appalachia was in 1892 from Dickenson County, in Southwest Virginia; today one coal company owns approximately 40% of the land and between 60%-80% of all of the mineral rights in the county


80% of all Central Appalachian counties are rural, and over half of the region's population lives in these rural counties


Extraction abuses by the coal industry, especially through mountain top removal, has destroyed more than 1,000,000 acres of forests, 500 mountains, and buried over 1,000 miles of streams in the Appalachian region

Kentucky ranks 50th in the Nation for the number of adults who cannot read


In Eastern Kentucky, where 60% of counties are consistently poor, the A.T. Massey company operated coal mines through 18 subsidiaries, and reported an operating profit in 2000 of $147 million with revenues of $1.1 billion


Remote parts of Southwest Virginia are now sites of many prisons, Red Onion and Wallens Ridge - both super maximum security prisons; inmates are shipped here from across the nation and from as far away as Hawaii and urban cities in the Northeast


In Hancock County, Tennessee the average income for a family of 4 is $14,000 a year, which is 47% of the national figure


1/3 of all of West Virginia's children are born into poverty


In Logan County, West Virginia 40% of residents do not have safe drinking water

Central Appalachia is a place of great contradictions. The beauty of the oldest mountain range in North America with lush mountains, old growth forests, small towns and isolated mountain communities is juxtaposed with long-term poverty, out-migration, lack of health care, inadequate educational systems, and political corruption.

The coal, timber, oil, gas, and water contained within the Appalachian mountains are resources that have historically influenced the social economic and political characteristics of the region. Companies have profited greatly from the natural resources at the expense of exploiting our people and destroying the environment leaving generations in decades-long, structural poverty. It is a cruel irony that a region so rich in natural resources is home to many of the poorest people in the United States. 

Originally home to indigenous peoples such as the Cherokee and Creek Nations, the rich coalfields of Eastern Kentucky, Southwest Virginia, East Tennessee, and West Virginia are now home to 6 million people, over half of whom live in rural areas, with some counties having less than 25,000 residents.
The coal and other resources generate revenues into the billions of dollars, but these huge profits go to companies in other states and counties not in Central Appalachian. Appalachian counties are left with little or no tax base to help fund schools, health care, or job creation.

Entrenched, corrupt local governments and lagging public policy have not generated sustainable economic alternatives in our region. Low-wealth individuals, women and people of color are often discouraged or excluded from civic activism. New job creation tends to be in the form of low-wage jobs, and at the same time, globalization has moved thousands of jobs from the region. Low-income communities have difficulty attracting new business. Geographic isolation and the lack of role models, entrepreneurial skills and access to start-up funds often frustrate individuals, communities and grass-roots groups poised to work to make significant positive change.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

OK..........enough distraction..................

Back to Realville s0ns.....................


Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger: Yale Environment 360


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.
> 
> Just a bunch of people wanting to tax poor Ian. Damn, I did not take you for one of the fruitloops.



My thoughts exactly. 

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2012)

Did someone mention physical evidence?





_*Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro*_

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Oddball - 

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat. 

Some 1% are growing. 

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

And here is the real story on Kilimanjaro...

While the retreat of glaciers and mountaintop ice in the mid-latitudes -- where much of the world's human population lives -- is definitely linked to global climate change, the same cannot be said of Kilimanjaro, the researchers wrote in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine.

Kilimanjaro's icy top, which provided the title for an iconic short story by Ernest Hemingway, has been waning for more than a century, according to Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

Most of the retreat occurred before 1953, nearly two decades before any conclusive evidence of atmospheric warming was available, they wrote.

"It is certainly possible that the icecap has come and gone many times over hundreds of thousands of years," Mote, a climatologist, said in a statement.

Unlike mid-latitude glaciers, which are warmed and melted by surrounding air in the summer, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice is driven by solar radiation, since the air around it is rarely above freezing, they wrote.

"But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."

Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow not sign of warming | Reuters


----------



## wirebender (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> "But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."



Do you make wine with all those cherrys you pick?

As for temperate glaciers, their melting is nothing new as evidenced by the number of archaeological finds their retreat is uncovering.  When you guys can point to something going on within the climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variation, or even beginning to approach the boundries of natural variation, then you will have some basis for "starting to wonder" if maybe the activities of man are responsible.  Thus far, however, there is absolutely nothing happeing within the climate that is in any way unusual or unprecedented.  The only thing happening at present related to climate  that is unusual is the amount of fraud going on within the scientific community where climate pseudoscience is concerned.

And I have asked you before to describe a mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming that doesn't violate a law of physics.  I note that you haven't answered obviously because there is no such explanation that doesn't violate a law of physics.  Don't you find that odd?


----------



## Oddball (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?
> 
> ...


It's relevant because hand wringers like you have been bellyaching for years about the snows from Kilimanjaro allegedly disappearing.

But, of course, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can pre*s*ent it as evidence that everything is going to hell in a bucket.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2012)

Science becomes political when the research into that science is funded by the government.  The science must adjust itself to the government's predetermined outcome and is essential to obtaining more government funding.


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

Meanwhile, the reason climate change is political is wingnuts, Christians, prison industry, petroleum industry, war industry, and retards are all lined up, claiming it doesn't exist or human activity is not responsible, in order to duck re-greening responsibility, by humans.

We re-green or the planet goes to shit.  Acidification and warming are both accelerating.  At this point, no matter, whether humans cause part, most, or all of the CO2, or they influenced it since the start of the industrial revolution, and the cumulative stewardship data is just not that good, so wingnuts keep ranting against mounting marginal evidence.

Acidification will take out the oceanic food chain, bees die, the Oglalla acquifier fails, pollution and any other disaster takes out the US breadbasket, and the wingnutskis get to think, hard!  While wingnuts are trying to think, along comes a couple of big storms and rising seas, and people have to move, from coastal cities.  This may take less than 100 years, to accrue.

Wingnutskis won't be able to fly in the face, of all this.  Guilty or not, humanity has to move on all this, or eat shitsky, wingnutski!  Go home to Russia, sell oil, snarf Putin!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

Oddball said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The world's leading atmospheric physicist has no expertise in climatology? Lordy, lordy, one of you is dumb as a rock, and the other is lying for employment.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > "But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."
> ...



LOL.   The fairy tell King repeats his endless 'challenge', even though it has been answered many times. And believes that spouting math that he doesn't understand, and no one else can make heads nor tails of, disproves all of the physicists in the world.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

wirebender said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > "But for temperate glaciers, there is ample evidence that they are shrinking, in part because of warming from greenhouse gases."
> ...


LOLOLOLOL......97% of the world's glaciers are losing ice mass and you call that cherry-picking? How did you get to be such an imbecile, wiredup&bent? Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby?






wirebender said:


> As for temperate glaciers, their melting is nothing new as evidenced by the number of archaeological finds their retreat is uncovering.  When you guys can point to something going on within the climate that is outside of the boundries of natural variation, or even beginning to approach the boundries(sic) of natural variation, then you will have some basis for "starting to wonder" if maybe the activities of man are responsible.  Thus far, however, there is absolutely nothing happeing(sic) within the climate that is in any way unusual or unprecedented.  The only thing happening at present related to climate  that is unusual is the amount of fraud going on within the scientific community where climate pseudoscience is concerned.


You live in your own little private fantasy world, wiredup&bentover, and it is an insane world at that. You are wrong about everything, of course and as usual for you. You're too stupid to understand that almost all of the "archaeological finds" you mention consist of stuff that was laid down on the existing glacier and then wound up on the ground when the glacier melted. No retardo, the glaciers have not melted away before in human history like they are now. Here's a good example. There are hundreds of others I could cite.

*Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier is gone*

BY JOHN ENDERS
Special to The Miami Herald
May. 04, 2009
(excerpts)

*If anyone needs a reminder of the on-the-ground impacts of global climate change, come to the Andes mountains in Bolivia. At 17,388 feet above sea level, Chacaltaya, an 18,000 year-old glacier that delighted thousands of visitors for decades, is gone, completely melted away as of some sad, undetermined moment early this year. ''Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists,'' said Dr. Edson Ramirez, head of an international team of scientists that has studied the glacier since 1991. Chacaltaya (the name in Aymara means ''cold road'') began melting in the mid-1980s. Ramirez, the assistant director of the Institute of Hydraulics and Hydrology at the Universidad Mayor de San Andres in nearby La Paz, documented its disappearance in March. Ten years ago Ramirez and his team of researchers concluded that the glacier would survive until 2015. But the rate of thaw increased threefold in the last decade, according to their studies. He believes the disappearance of Chacaltaya is an indication of the potent effects at higher elevations of the interaction of greenhouse gas accumulation and an increase in average global temperatures.

And he thinks other glaciers in the region also may be melting at a rate faster than previously known. Illimani, the colossal 21,200-foot mountain that looms over the city of La Paz and has served as the backdrop for postcard-perfect pictures since film was invented, is the home to several glaciers. They likely will melt completely within 30 years, he said. ''It's very probable that other glaciers are disappearing faster than we thought,'' he said. Researchers fear that Chacaltaya's fate will be shared by other glaciers in other areas of Bolivia, and in Peru and Ecuador as well, he said. ...the death of the glacier and what that means for the people of the Andean cordillera. On the western, mostly arid side of the Andes, millions of people depend on rain, snow run-off and melting glaciers like Chacaltaya, Illimani and Huayna Potosifor their water. This year, for the first time, the amount of water flowing out of reservoirs serving nearly 2.5 million people in La Paz and its adjacent city, El Alto, will exceed the amount of water flowing into them. *

© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_










wirebender said:


> And I have asked you before to describe a mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming that doesn't violate a law of physics.  I note that you haven't answered obviously because there is no such explanation that doesn't violate a law of physics.  Don't you find that odd?


No, retardo, you've asked many times and you've been shown the answers many times. You are just too stupid and clueless to comprehend the answers. You wouldn't know a "_law of physics_" if one bit you.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

I fail to see how glacier retreat is evidence of AGW. they have been retreating since the end of the LIA. 

has someone estimated at what temperature they would become stable? would we and our agriculture be happy if it was cold enough to stop glaciers from melting?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?
> 
> ...


Of course that ignores the fact the IPCC has stated none of that data has been scientifically verified by them, and was based on anecdotal evidence from an ecofascist advocate based on anecdotal statements from Ice Climbing guides based on the drop off of business.

Yep. Trustworth as shit.

Some are in retreat, others are growing. 97%? Horseshit.

Oh and that "answer" you've been avoiding?  Can I get an ETA on it's arrival, or are you gonna keep on running away, Sir Robin?


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?
> 
> ...










The *SOUTH GLACIER* on mt. Kilimanjaro and the *REBMANN GLACIER *(there are quite a few more!).  I've actually climbed the mountain so your comment nearly made me spill my coffee.  A more ignorant group of twerps would be harder to find than you and those who thanked you for this moronic post.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Meanwhile, the reason climate change is political is wingnuts, Christians, prison industry, petroleum industry, war industry, and retards are all lined up, claiming it doesn't exist or human activity is not responsible, in order to duck re-greening responsibility, by humans.
> 
> We re-green or the planet goes to shit.  Acidification and warming are both accelerating.  At this point, no matter, whether humans cause part, most, or all of the CO2, or they influenced it since the start of the industrial revolution, and the cumulative stewardship data is just not that good, so wingnuts keep ranting against mounting marginal evidence.
> 
> ...






No, the reason it is political is because left wing zealots are using environmentalism as a tool to steal money from the first world nations, enrich themselves, concentrate power in their sphere, and ultimately control all aspects of hman life because they think they know what's better for the Earth and humanity.  Unfortunately their ultimate goal is genocide.


"*In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day*." 
Read more at Jacques Yves Cousteau Quotes - BrainyQuote


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...








That's right.  You all say that unless you have a degree in climatology you are not_ possibly __able_ to understand what is being said....You tell us that all the time.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Did someone mention physical evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee, snow cover has recovered slightly and probably temporarily. Of course you're too ignorant to know how much of the snow and ice cover has already been lost.

*Mount Kilimanjaro*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Ice

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.[30] An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.[31][32] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.[33] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BCE.[34] The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912-1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989-2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.[34]*


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone mention physical evidence?
> ...







Yes, just imagine, 30 years after the end of the *LITTLE ICE AGE* there was a lot of snow at an elevation of 15,000 feet and above.

How do idiots like you find food.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 30, 2012)

The Andean glaciers have been melting for the past 10,000 years as a result of the end of the Little Ice Age what's surprising is that they are not all melting.  Some are growing.  The Perito Moreno glacier in Argentina and Pio XI glacier in Chile are taking on ice, instead of shedding it. 

If we had not had a little ice age we woudn't be exiting and there would be no global warming argument at all.   We can demand to return to the ice age, but it probably won't happen.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Yeah.....so? You have quite a talent for irrelevancies.

The important points are these:
"*An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.*"
"*The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro.*"
"*Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007.*"
"*At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033.*"






westwall said:


> How do idiots like you find food.


Funny, that's exactly what everyone with more than half a brain asks about you and the other denier cult dingbats.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Your whole existence is irrelevant.  That point aside what does your website have to say about the holocene thermal maximum when the temps were much higher than they are today?  Hmmmm?  What was the state of the *glaciers* on Kilimanjaro then?

Nice attempt to cover up your compatriots idiotic response.  You fail as usual.


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






So in this prediction he missed it low and in the prediction he made in 1988, he missed it high by a factor of 100%?

Does this sound like science or roulette? 

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





But, but, but...

You said that CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate and if we can control CO2 we will return to the ideal temperature of the times of Global famine and plague.

What's a doubter to doubt with so many possible things that seem doubtful?


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...






Was there a date in this somewhere?


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.
> ...






The trick is not to prove warming and it is not to prove CO2 increase.  The trick is to prove that one causes the other.  Historically, there is a causal link between the rise of temperature and the resulting rise of CO2.  There is no such histoical link the other way.

Rocks, spare the Permian Extinction diatribe from millions of years ago.  You cannot demonstrate a link of about 5 to 800 years across millions of years of geological digging.

Given there is no historical evidence, you need to demonstrate the modern link and beyond that the link that CO2 is so primary that adjusting it will, with no uncertainty produce the effect that you predict.

There is uncertainty.


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Did someone mention physical evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The glacier atop Kilimanjaro was never the victim of warming, but rather of lower precipitation.

Another disingenuous "proof" offered by the warmers.


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?
> 
> ...







How old are the glacial fields that are melting?


----------



## code1211 (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And here is the real story on Kilimanjaro...
> 
> While the retreat of glaciers and mountaintop ice in the mid-latitudes -- where much of the world's human population lives -- is definitely linked to global climate change, the same cannot be said of Kilimanjaro, the researchers wrote in the July-August edition of American Scientist magazine.
> 
> ...





Why do they never quantify that "part"?


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Gosh, I guess 97% of the glaciers are not receding.

Gee, I imagine methane isn't really issuing, from melted glacial ice, warming bodies of water, and from land areas, formerly covered by permafrost, before Bossy the cow even farts once!  I guess human fossil fuel consumption isn't anywhere near related to this.

Well now, that means the 'hockey-stick' of accelerating global warming must be for dropping on the ice, right before a fight, or it might be hooking or cross-checking.

I now am absolutely certain the Holy Father's fuck-tards are correct, about how we in the USA should keep importing oil, from OPEC and Russians and whoever holy papists can blow, under the covers.  

Those wingnutskis sure are smart, with their accents and all.  They don't believe in AGW, and look at all the oil they export!  I'm not going to watch anything, but Russia Today News, but what's that shit about Bashar Assad, I guess his boys don't kill Syrian citizens wholesale, at all, after all!

We might as well all forget about the carbonic acid, building up in the oceans.  Somebody tell those assholes at the beach to quit spilling their sodas, dammit!

Golly creepers, I thought Old Rocks was smarter than everybody, but now that wingnuts zombie'd on over and ate my brains, we can't possibly be headed for Mass Extinction Event 6, and I'd better get myself over to some whorehouse I mean church and pray for Rocks' immortal soul, so he doesn't come up with hard-to-sell ideas, about the Permian Extinction coming to see us, eat the wafer, shut the fuck up, blood of Jesus, save my faithful ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.
> ...



*Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, *

OMG! This must be the first time in human history that glaciers have retreated. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure enough, the glaciers are nor receding, the arctic ocean ice is not decreasing in area and volume, the arctic ocean clathrates are not creating 1 kilometer wide boils of methane directly to the atmosphere, and Swiss Re and Munich Re are lying about the record increase in weather related disasters in the last three decades.
> ...



Obviously the only evidence that counts is what you've seen in your short life.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Oddball -
> 
> And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?
> 
> ...



What about the Chicago glacier?
Is it in retreat?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2012)

can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Oh walleyed, why do you cling so tightly to your debunked denier cult myths? Oh right, you're retarded. 

I just spanked you yesterday on another thread over your idiotic holocene thermal maximum myth. 

Get a grip, little retard, your lies and nonsense won't fly here.



RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooo, what happened during the Holocene Thermal maximum when temps were at least 6 degrees warmer than today.  Why didn't the world end back then?
> ...



"_What was the state of the *glaciers* on Kilimanjaro then?_"  -  the state of the glaciers during the htm was that they were probably doing fine since they are in the tropics and the "*tropics were colder than average*".


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone mention physical evidence?
> ...



The glaciers atop Kilimanjaro are just a few out of the many thousands of glaciers worldwide, most of which are melting and receding or else melting and slipping faster into the oceans. The few on Kilimanjaro are not that significant and they are not being used as "proof" of anything in the world scientific community. There are other factors besides AGW that can influence the growth or decline of glaciers but nevertheless to say that any current glacial decline is not caused by warming but rather by less precipitation is just kind of stupid. Global warming is causing climate changes which include shifts in rainfall patterns so a pattern of "_lower precipitation_" over time could easily be a result of global warming. The fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about because you don't really understand this subject at all. For political reasons, you parrot the anti-scientific  lies and misinformation you pick up off of denier cult blogs and FauxNews. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to comprehend the science involved in this issue.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?



YES!


*World's glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say*
The Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg    
20 January 2010
(excerpts)

*From the Alps to the Andes, the world's glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace, leading climate scientists said today. Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said. "It is not any single glacier," he said. "It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion." He said only about 800 of the 46,000 glaciers in the Himalayas are being monitored by scientists. Data from those under observation suggests that 95% of glaciers are in retreat, but it is still unclear how much mass the glaciers are losing without knowing the depth of the affected places. "Those changes - the acceleration of the retreat of the glaciers and the fact that it is a global response - is the concerning part of all this. It is not any single glacier," he said

Scientists now had evidence collected over a long period of that decline from samples of the ice core and even collections of plants from mountains that were left ice-free for the first time in more than 5,000 years, Thompson said. The World Glacier Monitoring Service shows a similar picture. In a 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 - or 90% - were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing.  Glacier melt is also threatening water supplies, the UCS said, pointing to a 2008 study in the Himalayas which showed less water flowing from the glaciers to the great rivers such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra that sustain the Indian subcontinent. Thompson, who has been studying glaciers in the Andes for more than 30 years, said he had watched the loss in his own lifetime. A number of the region's glaciers have disappeared. Venezuela, which had six glaciers when he first began as a graduate student in the early 1970s, now has only two small ice masses which Thompson thought would be gone within ten years. An Andean glacier that had been melting at a pace of six metres a year 40 years ago is now disappearing at a rate of 60 metres a year, he said.*

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?







Yes, the retreat before 1950 was GREATER than it is today.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






What was that troll boy?

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

Quaternary Science Reviews, Article in Press, Corrected Proof 
 HYPERLINK "http://tinyurl.com/o7gh3" \t "linkWin" http://tinyurl.com/o7gh3

Early Holocene climate variability and the timing and extent of the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) in northern Iceland 

Chris Caseldine a), Peter Langdon a) and Naomi Holmes a) 

a Department of Geography, School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK 

Abstract
 The magnitude and timing of Holocene maximum warmth in the Arctic and sub-Arctic has been the subject of considerable recent interest, particularly in the context of future climate change. Although lying at a crucial location in the North Atlantic close to significant atmospheric and oceanic boundaries, terrestrial Holocene climatic data from Iceland are few and predominantly derive from glacial and palaeoecological evidence. Here we present new datasets from Tröllaskagi, based on chironomid-inferred temperatures (CI-T), using sub-fossil chironomids from the same lake sediments supplemented by pollen data. July air temperatures have been derived using an Icelandic training set, and the data suggest optimal temperatures at sea level up to 1.5 °C above current levels around 8 k cal. yr BP, a time when birch woodland was well developed in Tröllaskagi, but when woodland had still not fully developed in the more isolated NW peninsula. Our data thus suggest that optimal summer warmth did not occur in Iceland until 8 kcal. yr BP at the earliest, possibly lasting until 6.7 kcal. yr BP. The amount of warming for July was therefore at least 1.5 °C, but possibly up to 2-3 °C higher than the 1961-1990 average on the basis of the tree-line data. Comparison with data from elsewhere in adjacent Arctic regions, Greenland and Eastern Arctic Canada show peak warmth to be later in Iceland, and less pronounced. It also appears that there were enhanced temperature gradients during the first half of the Holocene between the two study areas Tröllaskagi and the NW Peninsula and that they influenced patterns of vegetation colonisation, with current spatial temperature patterns only developing as Holocene climate deteriorated after around 6 kcal. yr BP. 

FULL PAPER at  HYPERLINK "http://tinyurl.com/o7gh3" \t "linkWin" http://tinyurl.com/o7gh3

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.003      
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Or from one of your sites....

Although remnants of the Laurentide Ice Sheet did not disappear until about 7 Ka, the early to mid-Holocene (4,500 to 10,000 years) has often been considered to have been warmer than the last 4,500 years. A thermal maximum occurred at about 6 to 7 Ka (Figure 5.18). Conclusions about the mid Holocene warmth are based on several lines of evidence - latitudinal displacements of vegetation zones (Ritchie et al., 1983) and vertical displacements of mountain glaciers (Porter & Orombelli, 1985).

Quantitative estimates of mid-Holocene warmth (COHMAP, 1988) suggest that the Earth was perhaps 1 or 2°C warmer than today. Most of this warmth may primarily represent seasonal (summer) warmth rather than year-round warmth. Accompanying the higher global temperatures were significant changes in precipitation patterns, most noticeably in the monsoon belt of Africa and Asia. Reconstructions from palaeo-lake levels and latitudinal vegetation shifts (Ritchie & Haynes, 1987) suggest that these regions were considerably wetter than they were during the arid conditions of the last glacial maximum (18Ka), when moisture availability from cooler Northern Hemisphere sub-tropical oceans was reduced (Street-Perrott & Perrott, 1990).

Mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum


Or....



Edit  The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia      
 BibTex | RIS | RefWorks  Download   

J. Sakari Salonen, Heikki Seppä, Minna Väliranta, Vivienne J. Jones, Angela Self, Maija Heikkilä, Seija Kultti, Handong Yang 
To investigate the Holocene climate and treeline dynamics in the European Russian Arctic, we analysed sediment pollen, conifer stomata, and plant macrofossils from Lake Kharinei, a tundra lake near the treeline in the Pechora area. We present quantitative summer temperature reconstructions from Lake Kharinei and Lake Tumbulovaty, a previously studied lake in the same region, using a pollenclimate transfer function based on a new calibration set from northern European Russia. Our records suggest that the early-Holocene summer temperatures from 11,500calyr BP onwards were already slightly higher than at present, followed by a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 80003500calyr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3°C above present-day values. A Picea forest surrounded Lake Kharinei during the HTM, reaching 150km north of the present taiga limit. The HTM ended with a temperature drop at 35002500calyr BP associated with permafrost initiation in the region. Mixed spruce forest began to disappear around Lake Kharinei at ca. 3500calyr BP, with the last tree macrofossils recorded at ca. 2500calyr BP, suggesting that the present wide tundra zone in the Pechora region formed during the last ca. 3500yr.
Journal: Quaternary Research - QUATERNARY RES , vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 501-511, 2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.01.007 
Cumulative Annual 

View Publication     
 The following links allow you to view full publications. These links are maintained by other sources not affiliated with Microsoft Academic Search.   


 ( www.sciencedirect.com ) 


http://academic.research.microsoft....e-cooling-in-the-tundra-of-ne-european-russia


I can go on and on and bitchslap you as many times as you like.  You found one site that agrees with you (no surprise it's one of your charlatan sites) I can post dozens that say they, and you, are full of horse manure.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

When will the science matter in the real world?


When pics like this are on the news............waterskiiing on a central Alaskan lake in the middle of January!!! Not a moment sooner.









Remember the story of the bear shitting in the woods.............if you're not there does it smell?



The k00ks think the shitting bear in the woods is causing everybody to run out and buy gas masks!!!


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?
> ...



Actually, no the rate of decline now is around double that of 1950 - and yes, I can back that up. 

Check Arendt's work on the Alaska glaciers for this- here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110527162507.htm

This is an overview, but the study is available oneline (you may have to register)


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)




----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball -
> ...



If 97% of the world's glaciers are declining, and largely at double the rate they were declining - what age would you think they are?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tibLjnn_Nf4]Midget - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (May 30, 2012)

This forum is a fucking hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

*OMG you deny reality are ytou insane or just a retard?*

Yes, I deny your claim that in reality this is the first time glaciers have retreated.

Sorry if that makes you feel more retarded than usual.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd's posts are always worth reading - just not for the reasons he thinks. Many of them really are just hilarious.



Yes, pointing out warmist idiocy is funny.

How many trillions do you feel we should spend to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees?


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Todd - 

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *OMG you deny reality are ytou insane or just a retard?*
> 
> Yes, I deny your claim that in reality this is the first time glaciers have retreated.
> 
> Sorry if that makes you feel more retarded than usual.



Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat. In normal circumstances, some glaciers are growing while others retreat, and others do neither. 

What you seem to have somehow missed is that this complex cycle seem to slow to a halt in 1950, and from then on we have seen 97% of glaciers retreating. 

(Check the U. Fairbanks study conducted by Anthony Arendt on this - here is an overview: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110527162507.htm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.



Obviously spending trillions now to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080 will save money in the long run.

Maybe by the year 2300? 2400 at the latest.
Where should I mail my check?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *OMG you deny reality are ytou insane or just a retard?*
> ...



*Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat.*

Apparently the idiot I'm mocking doesn't know that. Give the moron a hand, would you?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Code11 does not think


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly. 

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are). 

You're not obliged to understand how.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why not address the point?


----------



## Saigon (May 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd - 

It is of no concern to me whether you are up to speed on this issue or not. If you'd prefer to be out of the loop - go with that. 

Why did you ask me the question if you weren't prepared to listen to the answer?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Oh you mean loans that have a defualt rate 10 times less then private loans and of which have aloready created 4 dollars in benifits for evcery dollar spent
perhaps if you didnt chery pick and act like a retard you wouldnt be one


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...







Wrong again Tojo.  Here are a couple of images showing the rate of loss prior to 1850.  It was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than today.  Also I posted a link to the USGS and they have historical images showing the rate of loss.    Finally here is a map showing the terminus of the Glacier Bay glaciers beginning in 1760-80 (when they were first noted by Europeans).  As you can see the melt prior to 1950 was profound.

You're as accurate here as your statement that there are no glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro.  In other words abject failure.  Do you know_ anything_?


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.









  76 TRILLION fucking dollars to maybe lower the global temp by 1 degree in a hundred years and you think some country's will benefit?  You're a hoot!


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Prove it.  Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream.  You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit.  Now we get to see how little you understand economics.  This should be funny as hell.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Sure they have.  Just think, if Solyndra could have had a ROI of just .50 cents they would have remained in business.  With a ROI of four bucks they are thriving!........oh wait.....they're not.  They're bankrupt and in receivership.  

So....which alternate reality do you exist in?


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> Prove it.  Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream.  You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit.  Now we get to see how little you understand economics.  This should be funny as hell.



There are a number of ways that national governments, cities, institutions and private households can and already are saving money by reacting to climate change, but let's start with one from an institution, and then perhaps move on to governments. 

King's College in London began refurbishment of its campus buildings some years ago, with the aims of reducing its carbon footprint and cutting costs. After anylising everything from lighting to HVAC to windows, they initiated a series of measures. 

In the first year of the project, they cut emissions by 3,000t, and made savings estimated at £4.4 million. The HVAC installation paid for itself within 12 months. 

I hope you found this entertaining.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

And here is an example of how a country can save money. 

A private company in New Zealand has been testing tidal power turbines in Cook Strait, NZ. 

Based on the performance of the pilot program, 200 turbines could produce enough power to supply New Zealand's total electricity demand by 150%. (This is an optimal figure, which I stress is essentially theoretical)

The turbines produce virtually 0 emmissions, are invisible, and produce electricity more cheaply than the coal plants they will replace. They have less environmental impact than hydro, and require very little maintenance. 

Of course I understand that you will laugh at this, but for the companies creating jobs and export dollars, and for the private citizens who get to see the coal plants closed, I doubt they will agree with you. 

Here is some info on the pilot:

The turbine Neptune intends installing at a cost of $10 million 4.5km off Wellington&#8217;s Island Bay will have a maximum generation capacity of 1MW &#8211; enough for about 500 homes.

That is a fraction of the 12GW of power &#8211; 1.5 times New Zealand&#8217;s present generation capacity &#8211; Bathurst calculates could be extracted from Cook Strait at a cost of billions.

It is intended that the turbines will be made in New Zealand. The 14m-diameter machines are made of carbon fibre so yacht builders are potential manufacturing partners.

The turbine&#8217;s carbon fibre construction should give it three times the generation capacity per tonne of a conventional wind turbine, Bathurst said.

cryptogon.com » New Zealand: Cook Strait Tidal Energy Project Getting Underway


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Westwall - 

This is really, really poor posting from you. 

Do you understand the difference between looking at a single example, and looking at a vast number of glaciers?

If so - then stop presenting single examples, and start to look at the material presented. 


PS. I stand corrected about Kilimanjaro's glaciers. I didn't know that it had any - it certainly didn't look to when I flew over it!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.




*HOLY MOTHER OF GOD*


How does somebody like this navigate in the real world?? I read some of these posts and there is such a level of disconnect as not to be believed. Pure fantasy stuff.


s0n..........you gotta take a course in how to read tea leaves. Your shit is not at all grounded. Green energy is moving at a snails pace for one reason: its not cost effective by any measure. Any measure. All over the world, any of this "real science" isnt mattering because countries have budgets and people are sick and tired of getting the shit taxed out of them to support this 18th century technology designed to "save the world". 


As Thomas Sowell brilliantly identifies in this vid.........far left guys are never concerned with answering two key questions no matter what you re debating:

1) As compared to what?

and

2) At what cost?


Thats why they compromise a small % of us..........most people have the inate ability to recognize that having to answer those two questions is critical.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]



Go to 3:40



How do I know with 100% certainty that Im correct and dopes like Saigon are wrong? If Saigon was grounded, Cap and Trade would have been a chip shot field goal in America. Its dead.......as dead as a doornail. Trust me.........people dont give a rats ass about "glacial retreat".


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



*This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.*

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386k/pdf/02_1386K_part1.pdf

The key findings from the comprehensive analysis are the following:
Alexander Archipelago, Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Island : Every insular glacier examined showed evidence of thinning and retreat. Some glaciers have disappeared since being mapped in the middle 20th century.
Coast Mountains, St. Elias Mountains, Chugach Mountains, Kenai Mountains,  Wrangell Mountains, Alaska Range, and the Aleutian Range: More than 95 percent of the glaciers ending below an elevation of approximately 1,500 m are retreating and (or) thinning. Of those glaciers that are advancing, many have tidewater termini. The two largest Alaskan glaciers, Bering and Malaspina, are losing several cubic kilometers of ice each year to melting and calving.
Talkeetna Mountains, Wood River Mountains, Kigluaik Mountains, and the  Brooks Range: Every glacier scrutinized showed evidence of retreat. Of 109 glaciers in the Wood River Mountains, all are or were retreating; some have disappeared since they were first mapped, photographed, or imaged.
In spite of the significant changes at lower elevations, not every Alaskan glacier is thinning and retreating. In several ranges, no changes were noted in glaciers situated at higher elevations.
Glaciers that were surging or had recently advanced by surging were also noted. This type of glacier advances by redistributing existing glacier ice over a larger area rather than by increased accumulation. Consequently, following a surge, more ice surface area is exposed to ablation.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2012)

Steve;



[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.*
> 
> .



That kind of posting really does make me angry. 

The number of times of this site I have heard people talk about cherry-picking data, and here we see a poster select, from the 130,000 glaciers in the world, 2 which he wants to talk about. 

Wall believes we can learn more about glaciers by using a test sample of 0.0000153% - despite the fact that I had previously linked a study which covered some 670 glaciers. 

That he ignored. 

Priceless.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

No, green energy isn't cost-effective.  It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

If we legalize pot and make ethanol and 25,000 products, including indestructible plastic auto-parts, like Henry Ford already made, green energy instantly decimates prison and petroleum industry, and car-makers since Edsel all look like the assholes they really are.

If we grow just switchgrass and hemp, green energy succeeds, just from the CO2-neutral biomass.  All those great gimmicks, like solid-state batteries and ocean-generators can wait a little longer, while we catch up with Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel:

Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel&#8217;s Vision of a Hemp Diesel Revolution « Ganja Farmer's, EMERALD TRIANGLE NEWS ~Marijuana News, Roots and Culture~

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

But the problem with state tyranny is like a joke, about that tyrant, the asshole.  One day, the parts of the body decided to have a democratic vote, to decide who would be boss.  The brain was the early favorite.

But then, the asshole argued, he should be appointed the boss, and if he were not so appointed, he would make trouble.  The other body parts objected.

So the asshole slammed himself shut.  Nothing could get out.  The brain and eyes fogged up.  The ears started ringing.  The hands started shaking.  And Mr.Nose had to smell leakage, from Mr.Asshole's backlogs.

So the asshole won!  Just like in real life.  Petroleum controls all our shit.  Petrol is the reason alcohol and then pot were banned.  Al Gore wanks around with fake-'Lord' Monckton and all kinds of skeptic assholes, since Al is also full of shit.  He wouldn't support legal pot, the whole time he was Senator or Veep, and now he sells his book and movie, to believers, while letting them land on nuclear power, as the 'clean' energy solution.

Nuclear power is for breaking chromosomes and despoiling all kinds of property, for years and years.  Al Gore is a professional masturbator, who is entertaining all kinds of oil company PAC-men, while the acceleration of warming and acidification are underway, and when the food chains get taken out, who cares if humans _caused_ global warming and carbonic acidification, when humans _refused to legalize pot or do jack-shit, to re-green anything, while CO2 got into everything and oceans?_

Assholes is, as assholes does.  Die-offs are happening.  If bacteria blooms, and if the acid kills plankton, say goodbye, to the oceanic food chain, and hello, to even more CO2 and methane!  Like Mr.Asshole wants, we will _eat shit, and die!_


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

> No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.


 
Oh hey now... you shouldn't be so hard on the ecofascisti demanding things that don't really exist yet and expecting to base our entire energy security on it starting tomorrow.  They can't help that they are uncompromising ideological fools.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Bob & Fitz - 



bobgnote said:


> No, green energy isn't cost-effective.  It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.



Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective. 

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people. 

It is entirely invisible. 

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station. 

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 31, 2012)

Pot solves all!  The whole nation should be required to smoke pot, it's so good for people.

Stick with legal bath salts, it's a better high.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Bob & Fitz -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[whisper]Ummm...    I'm mocking the stoner and ecofascists who think this is a viable solution.

True story.
[/whisper]


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Pot solves all! The whole nation should be required to smoke pot, it's so good for people.
> 
> Stick with legal bath salts, it's a better high.


Replace the word Alcohol with Pot.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUVwR0rw5fk"]To Alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Fitz - 

Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?

Please be specific.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Bob & Fitz -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, preach to the choir.  I support tidal energy.  We need to know it.

My statement was rhetorical, to explain why we have not enough green energy, starting with biomass, not ending with biomass.  But the cost structure, which incorporates nuclear and petroleum options with a huge prison industry hamstrings development, of any business, in the US.  Our deregulated energy deals, in the several states pass costs, around the world, driven by the residual strength, of our staggering economy.

So when Solyndra and companies like that cannot compete with aggressive Chinese companies, which do not pay for a drug and every other war or US intrigue and energy deregulation-related middlemen in the US, wingnuts cite Solyndra's failure, and then they block review of all AGW issues, to prevent not only the development of biomass and tidal energy, but also the re-greening media, people need, like fatties needing to lose weight.  We re-green, or we eat shit, and die.  Proliferating fat people will stay fat, and die.

Who will die, first?  Solyndra.  Bad cost-structure, failing real estate in the US from inflation due to unrestricted immigration for years, and idiocy by our leaders meant Solyndra not only died, but it started a scandal, on the way.  Tidal power can help the US avoid nuclear energy proponents' scams, but another nuke plant just went online, in Georgia, I'm told.

Remember my story, about Mr.A!


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Hey, preach to the choir.  I support tidal energy.  We need to know it.
> 
> My statement was rhetorical, to explain why we have not enough green energy, starting with biomass, not ending with biomass.  But the cost structure, which incorporates nuclear and petroleum options with a huge prison industry hamstrings development, of any business, in the US.  Our deregulated energy deals, in the several states pass costs, around the world, driven by the residual strength, of our staggering economy.
> 
> ...



Ok, good comments - I agree with basically all of that.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?
> 
> Please be specific.


I don't. I know that it is not a reliable backbone to any power grid like standard hydro electric (by far the best) followed by Nuclear and Coal as the cheapest, most reliable forms to exist.  Therefore I am skeptical with anyone who claims we should all move to as much unproven, under performing, hardly reliable forms of energy generation.  It's called rational caution.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fitz -
> ...



Fair enough. 

I have nothing against nuclear or hydro - I think it is a case of each country and state choosing options which suit their local conditions. 

Coal I think is a woefully outdated method of producing electricity, and should be phased out anyway, entirely regardless of climate change emissions.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.

So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.
> 
> So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.



I don't agree with that at all.

I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter. 

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it. 

Hydro likewise is a sensible option in many countries, but it is environmentally devastating. Again, I understand the case against it. 

Any group insisting on any form of energy can seem a bit fascist, and there are environmental fascists, but it is easy to assume from them that green energy is not viable, whereas in many cases it is safe, clean and practical. It just isn't always effective, depending on local conditions.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter.
> 
> But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it.
> 
> ...


When you support nuclear power, out of re-greening order, you invite battle, with the usual media-zombies, who support no bridge, between petroleum abuse and development of nuclear power, by hustlers, making money, without safety.

When you are out of battle order, you will let the media zombies do whatever they need to do, to keep the subject off re-greening, for as long as they need, to kill humans.

Order of public agendas has been distorted, in favor of prison, petroleum, and nuclear energy, and for war.  Who do YOU think is a fascist?  Not eco-freaks or re-greeners.  Take a look at all the spam, from AGW skeptics, trying their best, to avoid re-greening.  Those are fascists, or tools.  AGW theory is irrelevant to social order, since we must re-green, or we will die off.  So don't vacillate, in between all the fascist-spammers.

We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.



I agree. 

Already on this thread we have seen people complain that climate change is based on cherry-picked data - and then use 2 out of 130,000 glaciers to back up their claims. 

We've seen people claim that there is no climate change because storms killed more people a century ago than they do today - and then ignore data showing there are more serious storms today. 

We've even seen people claim glaciers melted faster a century ago - despite a dozen scientific reports proving the exact opposite. 

Although the sceptics like to point out sloppy science - they don't seem averse to it themselves.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

The cold is the reason?  Pfft.  Coal and Nuclear are perfect for the environment you're in.  Why?  Because in winter in WI, we hit -25 to -30 celcius REGULARLY on your typical winter.  I've had streaks of temps down to almost 40 below for multiple days.

Hydro electric is not effected, for I live in the birthplace of commercial Hydro-electricity.  Water levels matter, not temperature.  What we do lack is tidal.  Okay that's out because no tide.  Wave?  Maybe but we have mostly days of less than 2 foot waves.  Solar?  DOesn't work at night anyway and anything with less than 300 fully sunny days is a joke.  Wind?  Oh they're trying it.  Eye sore blights causing increases in seizures and those with illnesses and handicaps affected by flickering light are increasing.

It is not fascist to insist that your electricity be based on something that works unless you have a problem also with mathematics being based on correct answers.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

OH.... and have you my answer you've failed to deliver on now, lo these many days?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a cretin, walleyed. 

You make the ridiculous and scientifically unsupported claim that the Holocene Thermal Maximum was 6 degrees C hotter than today globally and so I post well referenced scientific material saying that: "*The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole...The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes.*
...and you respond by citing a few papers that talk about
1.) a temperature increase of "_at least 1.5 °C, but possibly up to 2-3 °C higher than the 1961-1990 average_" "_*in northern Iceland*_".
2.) "_estimates of mid-Holocene warmth (COHMAP, 1988) suggest that the Earth was *perhaps 1 or 2°C warmer than today. Most of this warmth may primarily represent seasonal (summer) warmth rather than year-round warmth.*_"
3.) "The Holocene thermal maximum *in the tundra of NE European Russia*...the Holocene climate *in the European Russian Arctic*....a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum when *summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3°C above present-day values. *

ROTFLMAO....to 'prove me wrong', you cited some stuff that agrees with my post. Your idiotic examples are talking about 1 to 3 degree increases in summer temperatures in areas near the Arctic, you deluded retard.








westwall said:


> I can go on and on


Yeah, you usually do go on and on with illogical, unscientific, demented nonsense.





westwall said:


> and bitchslap you


Never happened and never will. You lose every time but you're too retarded and lost in your own fantasy world to comprehend that fact.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






Still waiting for the proof.

Whatcha got?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






There were glaciers in the tropics between 8000 and 5000 years ago?

Cue the circus music.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...






Still waiting for that causal link that proves the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming on the planet.

You can start by explaining why it was warmer 8000 years ago than it is now.

Also, why now is about as cool as the planet has been in millions of years.  We have very high CO2 right now, comparatively, and very low temperature right now, comparatively.

Have the physical properties of CO2 changed over the last 65 million years?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?
> ...





The first time in 5000 years.

What does this tell you about global climate 5000 years ago?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





I'm asking because the ice cores that are useful in tracking CO2 are drilled from Greenland and from Antarctica.

A few years ago a glacier receded to the point that a murder victim from 5000 years ago was revealed, mummified and on the dry ground under the glacier.  There is ample evidence to show that we have cooled during this interglacial from a high point of about 8000 years ago and it may be assumed that the glaciers melting today are formed after that time.

You are saying that this is cause for panic and I am wondering if these glaciers are relatively young and just receding to a point that they were at 8000 years ago when there was the absolute perfect level of CO2 according to the warmers.

If the glaciers are returning to a level from which they have grown in the recent geological past, what is the problem?  Sounds pretty natural to me.

In the graph in the link, you can note that there have various times in the Halocene that we have increased in temperature at this rate.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.





Save money by spending money on things that will have no impact on anything?

Economics 1-0-none.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





Do you have a link to support anything that you just posted?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it.  Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream.  You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit.  Now we get to see how little you understand economics.  This should be funny as hell.
> ...





Link?


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it.  Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream.  You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit.  Now we get to see how little you understand economics.  This should be funny as hell.
> ...







How about a link to the claim there Tex.  It takes YEARS for projects like that to pay for themselves.  In fact most of the technology will be obsolete by the time it pays for itself.  GM just spent 3 million dollars on solar cells for one of its factories.  It will take around a hundred years for it to pay for itself.  The problem is the solar array will wear out and be reduced to scrap in around 25 years.

Do you see that problem or are you a form over substance person?





GM Receives $3 Million Solar Investment for Volt Plant


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

I like how it took years to refurbish the building, but the payback happened in 12 months...


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> And here is an example of how a country can save money.
> 
> A private company in New Zealand has been testing tidal power turbines in Cook Strait, NZ.
> 
> ...







Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources.  Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Please note I posted examples from both the northern and southern hemispheres.  You post papers based on computer models.  These are actual observations made on the ground.  I think they are a bit stronger than computer models.  Your "data" is based on cherry picked data at best.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.
> ...








If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels?  Pot meet kettle.  I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time.  You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before.  So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?

Pot meet kettle AGAIN.  You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record.  And you claim to care about accuracy?  What a load of horse shit.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.
> ...



The two most studied glaciers, but don't let that stop you faithers.

The most serious metric should be deaths and you admit that is down.  As for damage, I presume you mean dollars of damage.  Of course you conveniently ignore inflation, development and the fact we have had some really light years as far as storms go mixed in there.  Typical of the faithers to ignore all data that doesn't fit their religion.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 31, 2012)

Back in the winter of 2000, I had to supervise a client who had a nervous brekdown........he was put on 10 North at the local University Hospital. In other words, the psych ward.

Never forget speaking to a man a few times. Long brown hair and shaggy beard. Kept talking about the Federal Bureau of Incompetence ( FBI ) and told me he was Jesus..........several times.


Reading this thread reminds me of that week..............the guy was in a whole world all his own...............like a handful on this thread.


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Bob & Fitz -
> 
> 
> 
> ...






What are the parts made of and how well will they sustain in Salt Water?


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.
> ...





Or on applications.  Jets don't fly that well on Solar power.


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

westwall said:


> If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels?  Pot meet kettle.  I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time.  You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before.  So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?
> 
> Pot meet kettle AGAIN.  You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record.  And you claim to care about accuracy?  What a load of horse shit.


Idiotwall, AGW is happening:

Global Climate Change

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Modern Day Climate Change

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans -- Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way | ThinkProgress

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

It's getting hotter, while you get stupider.  People are responsible, if I show you the 80% of warming-related emissions stat, in there somewhere, but since you aren't very observant, let me remind you, whether humans are the primary cause of warming or simply riding desertification and acidification to hell is not a paramount concern.

What we do to re-green is the paramount concern!  Or we face death.  That's right.  DEATH.  Mass extinction event 6!  Your stupid denial tricks won't save you.

The last 30 or 40 years are the relevant years because that is the 'hockey stick' your fuck-tard friends are referring to, the upswing, an acceleration, in warming and all related phenomena!  Including acidification!  Hooking and cross-checking and puckey won't save you or anyone else who is as stupid as you are, you backsliding horse's ass!


----------



## code1211 (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels?  Pot meet kettle.  I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time.  You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before.  So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?
> ...






Desertification is not a recent phenomenon.  The Sahara was not always a desert.  It became one before Moses was born.

Was that also caused by driving on freeways?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



You mean the point that glaciers have retreated before?
Sure. What would you like to know.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 31, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels?  Pot meet kettle.  I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time.  You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before.  So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?
> ...




Hate to break it to you s0n, the the backsliding  horses asses are wINniNg!!!! Your side...........is not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Please, get me up to speed on the billions that the Solyndra loans saved the US. Thanks!


----------



## bobgnote (May 31, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Desertification is not a recent phenomenon.  The Sahara was not always a desert.  It became one before Moses was born.
> 
> Was that also caused by driving on freeways?


The Sahara means, the 'deserts,' plural.  It is partly former seabed, part former forest.

You are so stupid, over so many posts, don't reach for the funny, you aren't Eddie Griffin.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Solyndra has a default rate "10 times less then private loans"?
What does "10 times less" mean? Besides showing you don't know math either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



When you combine their scientific ignorance with their economic ignorance, some of these clowns become quite comical. I'm just glad that people have started tuning out their blather.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Todd -
> ...



Thanks for the Sowell, he's great.
Cuts right through the liberal idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *This is typical posting for Walleyes. And when you refute his silly posts with information from real sources like the USGS or NOAA, he immediatly claims they are lying and all in on a conspriracy to alter data. Here is a extensive report from the USGS.*
> ...



Typical liberal. Horrible math.
Try again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.
> ...



*But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. *

What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I like how it took years to refurbish the building, but the payback happened in 12 months...



I heard it paid for itself before they even started the work.

Or maybe it paid for itself before they even thought up the idea?

That's the great thing about green energy. No matter how unrealistic the claim, they can always top it.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 31, 2012)

Yeah Todd......nobody nails it on the head like Sowell. Hes stupid brilliant. There is nobody like him.......takes complicated themes and makes into an easy connect the dots game. The way he completely defines liberal intentions vs the results is nothing less than laughable.

If you never read "Vision of the Annointed", you realize how far these people have their heads up their asses when it comes to public policy. Thankfully, in about 5 months, its all going to get mothballed for at least two generations!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bob & Fitz -
> ...


backyard steel worked SO well for the Chinese and their Cultural revolution, didn't it?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2012)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Why? So everyone can laugh at what a stupid clown you are? OK.....LOLOLOLOL

Yes retard, there were "_glaciers in the tropics_" back then. There are glaciers in the tropics now. If you weren't braindead, you'd know that we were talking about the shrinkage of the glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, which is only about 165 miles from the equator in east central Africa. It doesn't get much more "_tropical_" than that.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Bob & Fitz -
> ...



There is more information in the link, but they are made largely of fibreglass, hence salt water shouldn't be a problem.

They'll require some maintenance, and they are facing some problems with fish being killed in the turbines, but these seem to be largely teething problems. 

TODD - 

Please do not spam the thread. Either address the topic or leave it for others.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.



And of course you haven't given any thought to why this might not be considered the best idea ever in Japan, California, Italy or Turkey?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.
> ...



Haven't given thought as to why vastly reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste that is currently stored on site at dozens of reactors is better than the status quo?

You continue to display your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.


----------



## Saigon (May 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.



Posting pictures of breakfast cereal packets IS spam, Todd. 

It is not debate, it does not point out anything...except perhaps that you can not discuss this topic sensibly.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Desertification is not a recent phenomenon.  The Sahara was not always a desert.  It became one before Moses was born.
> ...







And how many MILLIONS of years ago was the Sahara seabed?


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, Saggy, if you think my pointing out the ignorance you and the other clowns have shown on this thread is spam. That just confirms my point.
> ...







You get what you give.  You are spamming us with your incessant claims that are ridiculous on their face.  Solyndra's loss of 500 million saved us money how?  And show your math.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Westwall - 

I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies. 

So far you have not responded to either.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd - 

Please answer the question.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > TODD -
> ...



Actually, toadsteretard, all you ever point out is your own ignorance, confusion and rank stupidity. All of your posts amount to worthless spam because you don't actually know squat about climate science or science in general. You're pretty much just another clueless retard who's been bamboozled by rightwingnut fossil fuel industry propaganda, misinformation and lies and is now severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You make this obvious with every one of your ignorant idiotic posts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?
How much lower will the temperature be in 2080 if we follow your advice?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Already did.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

No, Todd,  you didn't, you know you didn't, and we both know why you didn't. 

Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable because of the earthquake risk. And neither are nuclear plants viable in places with a tsunami risk. 

They are not viable for scientific reasons, and it is not viable because no population will accept it. 

Presenting nuclear as a simple, catch-all solution is just stupid. 

I am pro-nucelar, but I wince when I see people pretend that we should forget what just happened in Japan because it will never happen here/again etc etc etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> No, Todd,  you didn't, you know you didn't, and we both know why you didn't.
> 
> Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable because of the earthquake risk. And neither are nuclear plants viable in places with a tsunami risk.
> 
> ...



There isn't nuclear waste currently stored in Califirnia?
Are you sure?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Todd - 

Please respond only to what I post - not what you might think I might post.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.
> 
> So far you have not responded to either.


T-Tard and Wally like to quote in quote in quote, and they fail to reply, to issues.

Let's see how many pages they can hijack.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Westwall - 



> Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.



I missed this earlier. 

Tidal power has considerable potential in countries with straits or large tidal harbours. It's already in use in Scotland, Norway and New Zealand, and I can imagine great potential in Japan, the US, Philipinnes, Indonesia etc etc. 

As for cost - consider this, based on Total system Levelized Cost (USD/Mwh hour)

Coal  94.8

Advanced Coal  109.4

Wind 97.0

Hydro 86.4

Advanced Nuclear 113.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal is not particularly cheap. 

I haven't seen a realistic figure for tidal yet as it is still so new, but I can imagine it falling well below that figure for nuclear, because in the long term it requires little maintenance, few personnel, and generates large volumes of electricity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Please respond only to what I post - not what you might think I might post.



*Storing radioactive material in places like California, Turkey, Italy and Japan is not viable *

And yet it is stored there. Maybe reprocessing the waste would make things safer?

You're welcome.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Todd - 

Why do I always feel with you that I need to take what I assume to be common knowledge, and then go backwards about three steps?

The point is that storing any form of nuclear waste in an earthquake zone is now unsustainable both politically and environmentally, in light of the earthquake in Japan. 

Likewise, building nuclear power plants in tsunami zones in clearly impossible, and is politially impossible in earthquake zones as well (even if scientifically feasible). 

Governments in countries like Japan, Italy, Turkey and New Zealand will likely never build another nuclear power station, because the perceived risk of earthquake is simply too high. 

I really hope this is clear enough for you....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

*Todd - 

Why do I always feel with you that I need to take what I assume to be common knowledge, and then go backwards about three steps?*

It's probably because your assumptions are so weak in general.

*The point is that storing any form of nuclear waste in an earthquake zone is now unsustainable both politically and environmentally, in light of the earthquake in Japan. *

In case you've been asleep, moving nuclear waste in the US has been a political non-starter.

You asked for a solution to the waste problem and I gave it to you.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Todd - 

This was your solution - 



> What is so difficult? Reprocess the spent fuel and recover the unused U-235, U-238 and plutonium. Bury the remainder. It's a much smaller volume left than never reprocessing and burying the entire amount.



In light of the recent tsunamis in Japan and Asia, and the recent earthquakes in Italy, New Zealand and Japan - do you see any potential problems selling this to people as a concept?


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I posted examples of how both institutions and countries can both save money by using better, cheaprer technologies.
> 
> So far you have not responded to either.







No, you havn't.  You posted CLAIMS.  There was no evidence to support the claims.  Here in Reno the city installed 400,000 worth of wind turbines.  They figured out it will take 130 YEARS to pay for them at the rate of "savings" they are realizing.  Of course the windmills will be worn out in 25 years so in point of fact they will NEVER pay for themselves.

You see dear person, reality is most often far, far different from the claims you all make.  
Don't take this as a denial of technology on my part because I am not anti tech or anti research into technology.  far from it.  What I despise though are the green companies getting the government to outlaw cheaper alternatives so that the green option is the only one available to the public.  That is fraud by another name and another method.

That results in very slow technological development because there is no reason to get better.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Blunder, under the dictionary entry for D-K effect is your picture...just sayin!


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Yes it does and some of those areas enjoy a high population density which makes it even more favorable.  Where it makes sense it SHOULD be employed.  Just like where solar can work it SHOULD be employed.  What shouldn't happen is government making cheaper alternatives illegal to make the green option the only one available.  That has ramifications far beyond even your worst imaginings.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> 
> 
> ...






No coal isn't but natural gas is.  Also the figures for wind are very optimistic.  Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels.  Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> No coal isn't but natural gas is.  Also the figures for wind are very optimistic.  Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels.  Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.



I think wind is a technology that is only really viable in extreme conditions. 

Spain and Denmark have those, but not everywhere does. 

Tidal is a far stronger technology in my book, because of the density of water and the reliability of the tides.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> This was your solution -
> 
> ...



The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
We need energy despite the occasional earthquake or tsunami.

There is always a problem when dealing with idiots.

What's your solution? Solar? Wind? Tidal?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
> We need energy despite the occasional earthquake or tsunami.
> 
> There is always a problem when dealing with idiots.
> ...



More used fuel is not created if countries do not use nuclear energy - which you must realise as well as I do is a done deal in countries like Italy, Japan, New Zealand and Turkey. 

My solution is to ignore politics and vested interests, and rely on scientific analysis of local conditions. 

For Finland, which lacks the resources to produce much hydro, solar or wind - I believe we should use largely nuclear. 

Elsewhere, nuclear is a great technology for Northern Europe, but impossible in large parts of the world due to the earthquake/tsunami risk and the lack of popularity associated with that. 

I think tidal is a magnificant technology that can produce great results in the US, Scotland, Norway, New Zealand, Indonesia, Argentina, Chile and Japan.

Wind is a strong option for Spain and Denmark, but I think will be of limited use elsewhere. It is of some use in Africa and South America, I think. 

Solar (Photovoltaic) can be a major player in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Spain, Australia and the southern US, but obviously less so in northern Europe. 

Natural gas is fine, but its a limited resource and is perhaps more of a source for the next 20 years than the century beyond those.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No coal isn't but natural gas is.  Also the figures for wind are very optimistic.  Nowhere on Earth have they reached those levels.  Wind generated power is very poor as is becoming obvious wherever the real figures become available.
> ...








I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed.  Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered.  Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The used fuel is there whether we reprocess it or not.
> ...







You're close to my opinion this but remove windpower, and natural gas is abundant for at least the next 100 years.  With what we have and can prove now.  Who knows what will be found in the future.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2012)

the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).

unfortunately we need power when the consumer demands power. so even though wind and solar can add to the grid we still need a steady source to accomodate the load. part of the cost of W&S should be the necessity of having a back-up supply on hand. or we could just regress to a lifestyle where you only use electricity when it is available. that would play havoc with production though. ask South Africa how they like constant rolling blackouts and unreliable electricity.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

IanC said:


> the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).
> 
> unfortunately we need power when the consumer demands power. so even though wind and solar can add to the grid we still need a steady source to accomodate the load. part of the cost of W&S should be the necessity of having a back-up supply on hand. or we could just regress to a lifestyle where you only use electricity when it is available. that would play havoc with production though. ask South Africa how they like constant rolling blackouts and unreliable electricity.


Unfortunately, idiot skeptics of pragmatism translate, to idiot skeptics of AGW, which translate to blockers of all notice of acceleration of both warming and acidification, which translate to blockers of carbonic acidification data, who then prevent all biomass media and re-greening media.  Oil and nukes persist, during this dilemma.

So even though you didn't read most of this thread, you are over here posting, without the slightest clue, as to biomass availability or necessity.  You disdain the hockey 'stick,' which describes acceleration of warming, while presenting hockey 'puck' and lots of stupid cross-checking and hooking.  You are an asshole.  Fuck you.  Learn to read, or move back to Russia, sell us some oil, and then find out, Siberia is melting, wingnutski:

Technology - Nicole Allan - Siberian Methane Could Fast-Track Global Warming - The Atlantic

When you can read, notice we like to use good grammar and punctuation, in English.  Capitalize letters, at the start of any sentence.  Put up some links.  Respond to points of information and issues.  This means you, asshole!  WTF, IanC . . .


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...


Thanks for pointing out about the error in thinking that windmills will create plenty of free energy for nothing. There are so many problems with windmills and battery storage. Their costs are overwhelming, They're unweildy, unsightly, and are a threat to some now-endangered bird species. One out of three of them is down for repairs a year after installation, and peak hours do not necessarily deal with demands. That's such a good post. 

Green energy does not belong in the political arena, it belongs in the private sector. If it can't make it there, it can't make it anywhere, even if the seaport of Copenhagen displays them prominently so the world will think of them as Green Giants. They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the main problem with renewable energy other than hydro is the fact that it is not steady. solar only works in the daytime (even if some charlatans were selling power at the bonus rate even at night), and wind power only when the wind blows (as long as its not too strong).
> ...








Your problem is you see a world like "could" and you translate that in your tiny little mind into "will".  "Could" is the language of charlatanism.  Real predictions don't use that word.  they tell you up front if "X" occurs "Y" will be the result.  That's why sceptics are winning the arguments.  All you guys can come up with is "could".  We say, this is what has happened in the past and looky here, all of the bad things the charlatans are telling you will happen....didn't.

Your meme has run its course.  You fooled a lot of people for a very long time now you should take your ill gotten proceeds and fade away.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Desertification is not a recent phenomenon.  The Sahara was not always a desert.  It became one before Moses was born.
> ...





So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?

I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?  I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.



I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Santa Claus.  You missed.

Why will climate science move from political to military?  
1.  fights;  2.  wars;  3.  fuck-tards in traffic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?  I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.
> ...



I see you started happy hour right on time today.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The problem with wind and solar, at least in the USA is that if the wind stops blowing at night, we still need to be able to produce all of the grid's electric to support the society.  

In the USA, if a politician allows the AC to stop as the TV's turn off and the computers shut down, he'll be leaving office like he's riding an ejection seat.

I don't know how the public feels about such things in Finland.

The cost of Solar and wind is not in place of, but rather in addition to what ever infrastructure already exists.  It is likely that the life of whatever is built today will be about 30 years and that after that 30 years span, wind and solar may have improved to the point at which intermittent production can satisfy the need.

Maybe not.  Who knows.

The point is that today, regardless of how you rig the numbers, there is an added cost to wind and solar that does not replace the current energy sources.  It only duplicates them.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?  I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.



I guess you are a fuck-tard, who wants to meet Bozo, since clowns must have been nice to you, in the past.  You missed.

The Sahara was part forested area, complete with primitive drawings which indicate ancient animals and plants.  It was part sea-floor, complete with shellfish-fossils, in the limestone of the Great Pyramids.  Then the areas desertified or pushed up, as the African Plate moved toward the European Plate.  You look it up, since you're a tard.  

Be sure and read what comes up in the search, and I have to remind you to do that, since you are a stupid, fucking moron and an asshole-wingnutski, who needs to go back to Russia and sell us some more oil.

Why will climate science move from political to military?  
1.  fights;  2.  wars;  3.  oily fuck-tards in traffic.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

The other problem is transmission of wind generated power.  Look at most output numbers for wind.  They use the graph at 28mph.  Average wind speed where I live is 13mph.  Look at what that does to power output.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





I'm trying to figure out which of the bomb throwers in this thread to put on ignore.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...





The availability and portability of CNG in the USA is a tantalizing prospect.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 1, 2012)

Because  the big polluters can't win in the facts and science. 

Therefore, they have to win in the Court of Public Opinion if they want to save $.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that the Sahara was not always a desert?  I guess the big red nose you're wearing is keeping you from seeing what you post.
> ...





I'm not reading one bit of sense in anything you post.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





I know!  Right?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> I know!  Right?


Wingnut!  Got a wingnut link for us to check out, since you two know each other?  One of you has to have a wingnut link, and if you weren't fuck-tards, you should be able to get on topic, and stay there, instead of throwing a wingnut flap-and-shit-fit, at any science, news, and inference.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Because  the big polluters can't win in the facts and science.
> 
> Therefore, they have to win in the Court of Public Opinion if they want to save $.


"Polluters" I take it you mean all industry that isn't some ecofascist wet dream fantasy.

Tha's a whoooole lotta tuckfardery.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

At every climate or environment-related thread, in the world, the wingnuts gather, to offer spam and virtual spam, in a circle-jerk.  Some of them post pictures, all recite sock-garbage, seldom do they post links with point-by-point, on-topic information.

Wingnuts like to fly low, in duty-shifts.  I wonder who is on-duty, at this thread?  Get a link and some talk, geeks!  Did you run out of tard-talk?  Tired of hockey stick, that swats your puckey?  Got beer?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote.  Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote.  Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.


I thought they were leaving, to go outside, in the air, while we type stuff up.  Maybe if you would post a link, offer some scholarship, stow your stupid agenda, we'd have us a party.

I see my sources are 'shread'(sic) material, for a mighty tardy fuckup, like save-it.  You might offer some actual rebuttal, rather than stupid, oppositional remarks, with a misspelling problem.  I'd like to see links, and rational argument, rather than shit oozing out of your head, onto your keyboard, if you claim you are such a bitchin' boarder.

Meanwhile, the CO2 in the Arctic measures over 400 ppm, way over the safe limit, of 350 ppm, way past the 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

So, fuck you, very much!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> At every climate or environment-related thread, in the world, the wingnuts gather, to offer spam and virtual spam, in a circle-jerk.  Some of them post pictures, all recite sock-garbage, seldom do they post links with point-by-point, on-topic information.
> 
> Wingnuts like to fly low, in duty-shifts.  I wonder who is on-duty, at this thread?  Get a link and some talk, geeks!  Did you run out of tard-talk?  Tired of hockey stick, that swats your puckey?  Got beer?


Wow... SOunds like a description of our ecofascisti chicken little chorus right here on USMB.

Ole Crocks stops freaking out over magic CO2, Kommiekonnie takes over, then PissyChrissy, then Trolling BLunder....

Bob's nailed it.






Way to go Bob.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer to shread your sources bobgnote.  Maybe you haven't noticed but your friends run when I show up.
> ...



Check your parallel dumbass thread dimwit.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Well, they're all olfraud socks so it doesn't really matter.  They are all cut from the same cloth and I find them wildly entertaining.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The other problem is transmission of wind generated power.  Look at most output numbers for wind.  They use the graph at 28mph.  Average wind speed where I live is 13mph.  Look at what that does to power output.



Are they putting the turbines where you live?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The other problem is transmission of wind generated power.  Look at most output numbers for wind.  They use the graph at 28mph.  Average wind speed where I live is 13mph.  Look at what that does to power output.
> ...



They are trying.  Its all about building them and getting the funding/tax credits.  Then you let them rot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well, I don't find you fellows entertaining. But then I never liked the Three Stooges movies, either.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Was in Eastern Oregon, used I-84 out to Arlington. All of the turbines were turning in the wind, didn't look like they were rotting to me. In fact, they are putting out enough juice that we have to shut them down for periods to avoid spilling too much water over the dams. Were our grid adaquete, we could be shipping power to anywhere in the US.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Okay, see Oregon on the coast has winds averaging fast enough to warrant use.  In Southern Central Michigan not so much.  You apparently don't understand grids very well.  You can only transmit power over short distances.  Grids shift that power from one area to the next, but not from Oregon to Michigan.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



You are speaking out of ignorance. We have a direct DC line from a dam on the Columbia to San Diego. That is about the distance of Michigan. Very high voltage DC can be economicaly tranmitted long distances. The problem with the US grid is that it is in three sections, and is an antique.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

And the Eastern side of Oregon is not the coast. Our wind potential pales beside that of Wyoming and Montana. Or either of the Dakotas.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2012)

High Voltage DC Transmission Systems (HVDC) - Siemens


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


What?  Weather and climate are different between Michigan and Oregon?  Next you'll be trying to tell me they have different geography too!


----------



## Saigon (Jun 1, 2012)

westwall said:


> I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed.  Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered.  Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.



I think wind power has been over-hyped, but it is still useful in countries like Spain and Denmark that have excellent wind conditions. 

The bird thing always struck me as a bit of a red herring: 

According to the CSE, for every bird killed by a turbine, 5,820, on average, are killed striking buildings, typically glass windows.

The CSE recommends building wind mills out of known migratory routes. That doesn't seem too hard. 

Wind myths: Turbines kill birds and bats | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> And how many MILLIONS of years ago was the Sahara seabed?



Good question! I'd like referenced answer to that question as well.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Not Todd, but, earthquakes and tsunami's should be appropriate design conditions, the problem associated with building nuclear power plants at any location is appropriate consideration to the unique natural issues associated with that area. The problem with the nuclear power facillity in Japan wasn't that they built a nuclear power plant in Japan, its that they didn't adequately consider the somewhat obvious issues with that particular site and either choose a different site, or incorporate appropriate design features to handle the issues involved.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And how many MILLIONS of years ago was the Sahara seabed?
> ...







Ask and ye shall receive.......

it's general but fairly accurate.

Tectonic movements 

The first major folding of the Tell Atlas Mountains of North Africa took place in the Oligocene Epoch. In the Miocene, North African flysch (thick and extensive deposits composed largely of sandstone) formed layers that, from the Er-Rif to northern Tunisia, were pushed from the north toward the south. The High Plains area, farther south, which as a whole was only mildly deformed, was bounded on the south by the northern Atlas Mountains, which intervened between it and the Saharan Atlas. Continental movements lifted the Aurès mountains to a height of about 3,300 feet during the middle of the Miocene; the Aurès are bounded on the south by the northern Sahara structural line, which extends from Agadir in Morocco in the west to the Gulf of Gabes in Tunisia in the east, dividing the African Shield from the folded Mediterranean, or Alpine, zone.


Africa : Marine formations -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed.  Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered.  Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.
> ...








I'll listen to these people a little more closely.....


The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

or.......



ALTAMONT PASS, Calif.  The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades in one of the nation's first big wind-power projects.

  SeaWest Windpower wind turbine generators stand near Tracy, Calif.  
By Ben Margot, AP 

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors.

After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy.

The size of the annual body count  conservatively put at 4,700 birds
USATODAY.com - Wind turbines taking toll on birds of prey

And that is for a single wind farm.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...







The plant did fine with the earthquake and it would have weathered the tsunami as well if they had bothered to place the back up generators on the roofs of the containment buildings like they had been told to do.  The tsunami wiped out the generators and that is what led to the meltdown.  

Basically the Japanese got complacent because they think they know everything there is to know about earthquakes and tsunamis.  Complacency kills.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?



How much is western civilization worth to you? 



> How much lower will the temperature be in 2080 if we follow your advice?



Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences, but hopefully enough lower to avoid the irrecoverable consequences. Most of the next century is already in the pipeline, at least as far as the changes we are likely to see in the next 50 years, we can make things worse, but due to lags in system response and the momentum the system has already been given, there isn't much we can do that will make the next half century retreat from the course we are currently influencing.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> I have never seen windpower get a favorable review whenever it is honestly analyzed.  Add to that the slaughter of wildlife and there is no reason why windpower should even be considered.  Wind farms kills more birds than all the oil spills of the world combined ever, in a single year.



Please supply reliable reference for these statistics and analyses, they sound fabricated.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.



They aren't as ugly, nor as smelly and health hazardous as oil derricks, strip mines and smoke stacks, but we still seem to have them all around the nation.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So 55-65Mya?

More recent than I would have guessed.
Oh, and thank you very much!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> The plant did fine with the earthquake and it would have weathered the tsunami as well if they had bothered to place the back up generators on the roofs of the containment buildings like they had been told to do.  The tsunami wiped out the generators and that is what led to the meltdown.
> 
> Basically the Japanese got complacent because they think they know everything there is to know about earthquakes and tsunamis.  Complacency kills.



That will probably always be an issue of concern and consideration.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > They did as good a job as I've seen of trying to make them look aesthetic, but they're still ugly buggers wherever they are. But the Copenhagen ones weren't as ugly as the Pickens group south of Lamar all the way down the road through Oklahoma's panhandle to Amarillo. Barf.
> ...



Indeed they aren't. 

I don't particularly like the look of wind mills, but if they are set alongside highways or out at sea, they don't bother me.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> The plant did fine with the earthquake and it would have weathered the tsunami as well if they had bothered to place the back up generators on the roofs of the containment buildings like they had been told to do.  The tsunami wiped out the generators and that is what led to the meltdown.
> 
> Basically the Japanese got complacent because they think they know everything there is to know about earthquakes and tsunamis.  Complacency kills.



Complacency with wind, solar or tidal is not dangerous to the wider community, and in a democracy, that matters too. 

Nuclear accidents are not common, but when they do occur, they can threaten the entire country. That fact has to be part of the equation when choosing the best overall policy for energy as well as other factors.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Well..so long as you don't have to look at them, that's all that matters.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx9cueL7Sq0&feature=endscreen]bye bye 3 palas - bye bye WindMills - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Well..so long as you don't have to look at them, that's all that matters.



Sorry, Kosher - I don't see your point. 

Are you suggesting that how people feel about how wind mills looks is important, or not important?


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 2, 2012)

It would be less important if they were effective.

They aren't effective, and they're a blight. Plus they're dangerous.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> It would be less important if they were effective.
> 
> They aren't effective, and they're a blight. Plus they're dangerous.



They are effective under certain conditions, and countries like Spain and Denmark produce significant amounts of electricity from wind at a competitive price per Mwh. 

But obviously not all countries have such conditions enough of the time that wind becomes viable as a major source of energy. 

I am not sure why you would consider them more dangerous than nuclear or coal, for instance.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?
> ...





s0n.......you might as well go outside and bay at the moon. Tens of trillions are not going to be spent due to a few hundred thousand nutters getting angst about what MIGHT happen 50 years from now. Write it down...........this is what is so ridiculous about this whole thread. People who hunt ghosts want money to eradicate the threat. Only a k00k would think its actually going to happen. Id love to go out today and buy a brand new 2013 Ford GT500 for $65K. Not happening...........its kinda a budget thing.

Best take up a new thing to get all OCD about. I tell this to all the bomb throwers on this forum. Dollar to 1,000 stale donuts they'll be saying the same stupid-ass things 10 years from now and green energy will still be well less than 10% of our energy.

Its like this.........I work in the field of autism for 26 years as an administrator. I see parents fighting all the time with the state goverment to get a larger slice of the pie for services. In recent years, budgets are being slashed. Why? Money is tight......and you just dont have a big enough voting block to change it. It is the exact same for this global warming shit.......its about numbers. Cant make the impact you desire.............never will either.........100% certainty. And tought shit on you too........imagine if the government bowed down to every fringe k00k outfit? There are lots of them including the bomb throwing environmental nutters........but if you look at the landscape, their impact is clearly on the wane ( see Cap and Trade)

The bomb throwers have to go to college and take a course in reading the tea leaves.


The science isnt mattering.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...






Just thought I'd go back to the source post and check the actual first statement which, it turns out, is based on statements with equivocal and uncertain words and is filled with hedging and non-specifics.

Seems almost reasonable except that when an AGW Proponent says that SOME PORTION of climate change MAY be the results of Man's activities, he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.

When the statement is that Warming and Climate Change ARE incontrovertibly the result of Man's Activities and that no other cause could even tangently be responsible for the effects cited, then we will have something to work with.

Until then, the argument's hot air is sourced to man, but that's it.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

> he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.



To me, this is such a pointless line of reasoning; it just makes no sense whatsoever. 

Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts. 

Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind. Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research. They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.

Lastly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence. 

As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying. 

As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change. But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent. I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that. I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


What the ecofascists do not want to admit is this:

ALL forms of power generation has a trade off.

Solar wastes land, is a major sight pollutant and is very light on energy density and runs only in certain areas for part of the day.

Wind causes seizures to those who are sensitive to flickering light, stress related illnesses caused by sound, is an eyesore, throws ice chunks, kills birds and runs only when the wind is at certain speeds.

Biomass affects how farmers grow causing food shortages for the crop is burned or replaced with fuel crops, and produces just as much of the same climatological threats they sought to ban.  Not to mention it's a LOT more expensive and has no significant drop in environmental impact.

Tidal, depends on the slow generation periods created by the tides and is a shipping hazard.  Oh, and it's localized to small areas which have big enough tides.

Wave energy is again is limited to the shore where wave action is large enough, you're consuming coastline and it is easily shut down by storm or lack of waves.

They all have their drawbacks... and none of the above are as reliable, inexpensive, energy dense and proven as Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Hydro.

But since they are such known quantities, it's hard to scam the public, and gain financial and political power with it.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Fitz - 

I don't think I've ever heard any moderately intelligent person deny or even downplay any of the things you suggest. 

I've seen a few ridicule the obvious red herrings like the bird strike one, but it's fairly obvious to most people that all forms of electricity production have some drawbacks. 

You don't do yourself any favours by pretending that nuclear generation is somehow cheap, though. 

It's a funny thing that here you are complaining that environmentalists aren't honest about the drawbacks to renewables, while at the same time you aren't honest about the drawbacks of coal and nuclear. 

Why is that?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right. That line of reasoning is pointless... till it's your pocket being picked. The left never wants capitalism to work unless they can get something extra for nothing... but just them.



> Firstly, the coal, oil and nulear industries have profited massively for years from government contracts, and I don't the most näive person in the world thinks a lot of that happened without corruption, graft and shortcuts.


 
And the green energy people are MORE honest? Utter and mighty bullshit. Solyndra is just ONE example at the scams going on. You don't like subsidies to coal and oil (if they really exist in the form you think) I'm more than happy to eliminate ALL government industry subsidies and let the market do what it will. Are YOU ready for such consequences to see popular companies fail because the product they make is not economically viable? I doubt it. You want to measure the game in something that doesn't matter or are happy with a 0-0 tie. Everybody loses.



> Secondly, the great majority of scientific research and researchers will never benefit financially from any power project of any kind.


 
Bullshit again. Dr. Mann and Dr. Hansen are the posterchildren for such abuse. Experts on television are PAID for their time. They write books, they do the lecture circuit, the fan the flames of fear as consultants... all for personal profit.

You are a liar that this doesn't happen, or painfully ignorant on the academic corruption out there.



> Lecturers in physics do not, by and large, rely on handouts from solar power or coal companies to conduct research.


 
They rely on handouts from politicans seeking data in which to gain political power. These scientists are willing dupes. That is all.



> They conduct research based on solid scientific principles and practices.


 
That ended with climategate proving this is not fact. Where've YOU been since 2007 when the fatal bullet hit AGW?



> stly, if climate change science were based on corruption or politics, we would not see conservative parties around the world - including those who have previously invested in nuclear - line up on what might seem to be the left side of the fence.


 
You fail to notice that political opportunists and power hungry bastards are in ALL political parties. The best parties do their best to purge themselves of those who value personal power and corruption for it out of their midst. At least the RNC in the US seeks to purge themselves of these people rather than embrace them like the DNC always seems to. Man, particularly ambitious politicans with no morals and little ethics will always find new and improved ways to try and make themselves nobility with power inperpetuity. This does not make them right, only evil.



> As I have said here before - the fact that climate change is a left/right issue in the US doesn't mean it is in other countries. Look at their conservative parties, and see what they are saying.


 
Right, it's a smart versus sucker issue. Social engineering at the most devious level. Something government should be very very very very very very very restricted at doing save around crime. 



> As far as man's role goes; I think most people agree that human acitivity plays some role in climate change.


 
Appeal to consensus fail. Most people didn't believe in Plate Techtonics till the 60s. Most people did not beleive in Germ Theory till after Louis Pasteur. Most people believed in Spontaneous Generation of flies from rotting meat till the early 1800's. In the early 1900's Spiritualism was a huge fad till Harry Houdini, angered at the cheap charlatans masquerading as mediums created the American Skeptics Society to flush the chumps out preying on the hopes of the masses.



> But I defy anyone to say accurately to what extent.


 
I defy such tawdry equivocation. The sun will probably rise tomorrow covers you from doomsday, doesn't it?



> I think we are 10 years away from coming up with a single, concrete line of data on that.


 
We might be 10 days out... or 10 centuries. Come on. What kind of low grade P.T. Barnum 'science' is this? This does nothing to enhance your veracity.



> I'd rather work on tackling climate change while that research is being done that just ignore it.


 
Fine. Do so with your own money and those willing to contribute. Create the science and data that is REPEATABLE and OBJECTIVE that all can test it and achieve the same results using their own methods to prove it. Do not expect to pass laws and force people into lifestyle changes until you have PROVEN your case and provided a cost benefit analysis of what will be gained by adopting your changes. 

I'll lay dollars to donuts your suggestions will fail on 2-3 of those standards.


This episode of Fisking was brought to you by  DOH


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> I don't think I've ever heard any moderately intelligent person deny or even downplay any of the things you suggest.
> 
> ...


I never stated the issues with coal and nuclear because I thought you ecofascisti had those tattooed on your arms for easy reference.

Plus I mentioned some of them in an earlier post.

As compared to the popular ecofascisti forms of energy, Coal, Nuclear, Hydro and (currently) Natural Gas are far and away the best forms of power generation with the positives FAR outweighing the bad.

So are you gonna pout all day?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Fitz - 

Actually I'm pro-nuclear - I have no idea at all why you might think otherwise. 

But in any conversation I think it is important to be honest, and if we're being honest about nuclear, it has several strongly negative elements - it's not popular, the safety risks are major, the waste is a problem with no solution, and it is not feasible in earthquake/tsunami zones. 

I still think it is the best option available in some parts of the world, but certainly not a panacea. 

I really struggle to believe that any honest person thinks coal is a good alternative....I'd be interested to see you present a case for it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics.  It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles.  As for lighting, they're darn near right.  It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way.  If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.

But the point remains this is not about doing what's bigger better faster cheaper.  It's about power of men over other men and profiting at the expense of others.  The very issue you've denied since post 1.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics.  It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles.  As for lighting, they're darn near right.  It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way.  If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.
> 
> But the point remains this is not about doing what's bigger better faster cheaper.  It's about power of men over other men and profiting at the expense of others.  The very issue you've denied since post 1.



Right - because profit motive is never an issue in the coal, oil or nuclear industries. And neither have ever received ubsidies. 

I have to say man - I just cringe when you post things like that. It's just so ridiculously one sided that it amazes me that you don't see it yourself. 

Popularity is a valid point to make here, because we live in democracies. Governments should work to provide energy from sources people largely respect and prefer - providing to do so almost makes good use of tax payer dollars. 

I do look forward to seeing your overview on coal.

btw - In the last 4 elections I voted for 4 different parties. I'm not left wing, so don't portray me as such.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Man seems to struggle with controlling the atom.  The reasons, political, economic, forces bigger than man.

Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind.  Not really surprising.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind.  Not really surprising.



It's a good thing there is no greed and power associated with the oil and coal industries.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Now we have those motivated by greed and power to lead us down a path to solar and wind.  Not really surprising.
> ...



You just prefer a new evil.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

SaveLiberty - 

I don't prefer energy sources on the basis of good or evil. I can imagine all industries within the sector are tainted by greed and corruption, but we need energy, so let's try and put the politics to one side and base or decision making on science.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Just thought I'd go back to the source post and check the actual first statement which, it turns out, is based on statements with equivocal and uncertain words and is filled with hedging and non-specifics.


Saigon's OP:  "I don't see science as being political."  I don't see commenting wingnuts putting up links, but I see a lot of wingnut fart-and-giggle, all through this thread.



code1211 said:


> Seems almost reasonable except that when an AGW Proponent says that SOME PORTION of climate change MAY be the results of Man's activities, he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.


You are a blocker, in an extreme state of denial-ecstasy, arguing, when you need to discuss what will be done.  Politics and forums for you are opportunities, to argue against facts, which are consensus, and against logical progression to solutions to global warming and acidification, no matter who is really responsible, for stewardship of the Earth.  You argue against an AGW progression, toward disaster, since you do not want to solve warming and acidification, for any reason, whether or not human participation since the industrial revolution has become critical, to either damage or reconciliations.

Petroleum, nuclear, prison, and war industries are lining their pockets, asshole 1211!  They issue carbon, and they prevent re-greening, while CO2 has moved from 275 ppm, at the start of the industrial age, to 400 ppm, in recent Arctic measurements.



code1211 said:


> When the statement is that Warming and Climate Change ARE incontrovertibly the result of Man's Activities and that no other cause could even tangently be responsible for the effects cited, then we will have something to work with.


You are an asshole, who does not want to acknowledge humans steward the Earth, toward hell, since the start of the industrial age.  Your simplistic view of AGW as a proportion of current emissions is the result of your head being up your ass.  We have to fix the planet, no matter what the stupid proportion of human CO2 is, relative to natural.

Saigon's OP: "But why do some Americans seem to think climate change is left wing conspiracy, when most conservatives around the world are saying the opposite?"



code1211 said:


> Until then, the argument's hot air is sourced to man, but that's it.


Until your head comes out of your ass, you cannot post links or reason, how a problem must be solved, and re-greening the Earth is the only solution.  I see you are on stupid-denial-duty, this morning.  Who is your wingnut wingman, this shift?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Ah yes...

"If given a choice of two evils, I'll take the one I haven't tried before."

tee shirt slogan


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics. It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles. As for lighting, they're darn near right. It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way. If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.
> ...


When you desire to use government to play social engineer and interfere with free market, you lean to the left.

Government should be there to protect the rights of it's citizens from threats from without (The military) and threats from within (The Courts). After that, it needs to get out of it's people's way.

I have never said that there isn't all sorts of unethical problems in those industries. I am saying we can end those too without just replacing them with NEW corruption in industries that cannot compete and will turn out to be more expensive, less reliable and damage society by their inferiority.

You cringe at my POV? I wince at your naivete on the nature of man, power and money.  Also, if you don't want fleas, don't lie down with the dogs.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Fitz - 

There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be. Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer. 

I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market' - especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming. 

The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase. 

That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference. It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment. 

As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints. 

Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Try the next size up in underwear bob.  Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon, you're welcome to go out and buy solar or wind power generation sources.  The government is bending over backward to help you.  There are many fuel oil companies available.  Power lines are deregulated.  Why the lack of action?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Saigon, you're welcome to go out and buy solar or wind power generation sources.  The government is bending over backward to help you.  There are many fuel oil companies available.  Power lines are deregulated.  Why the lack of action?



I'm not sure how it is in the US right now, but here in Finland there are a very limited number of options available to consumers. There are options available in terms of supplier, but there is no way to track 1 unit of electricity from production to consumer, so what you are buying is more a % of total supply than anything else. 

Finland produces 0 solar, geo-thermal, osmotic or tidal energy, and very little wind. 

I'd love a system where comsumers got a menu with electricity supply options on, but I doubt it will happen soon.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Oh, I get it now.  Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Oh, I get it now.  Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.



Umm...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 

Why would one of the wealthiest countries on earth require funds from the current with the highest foreign debt on earth?


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 2, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



It's important to have variety.

It's always a plus if the new choice is proven to be inefficient.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

> There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be.


 

Not a student of history I see.

Oil was not regulated very much or very well till the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and civil ordinances concerning gas stations came about in the early 1900's and late 1800's. Coal was also not very regulated till TR busted the coal miner's union around 1903 to save the lives of millions of people from freezing to death that winter. Before that? Whale Oil was very free market. Before that, Wood. Who the hell regulated wood? Lumber companies and the timber industry.


No free market and never was? 

Monkey bollocks.




> Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.


 

They can and do. Just too many think they're getting screwed on the price by going to Solar or Wind. Or their neighbors get pissed that they're making a neighborhood eyesore. Ever study on how to get off the grid? There you go. Choose away. Nobody says you MUST be hooked up to a grid, save city ordinances... unless you live in some pseudo fascist state. I dunno. Does Finland force you to use a particular type of energy?




> I have never understood the obsession the US far right have with the mythical 'free market'


 
Do not confuse free market with lassaiez faire capitalism.  All successful economies have a certain level of government involvement.  The more government though, the more it's like driving a car while riding the brakes.  The more government the harder the brake is being pushed.  Sooner or later, one or the other will be ruined.

Government, should be involved ONLY with ensuring 'fair play' in as much that labor is not exploited, truth in advertising and delivering on promised results, fair competition to prevent monopolization, unfair foreign economic warfare is blocked and accurate weights and measures.  After that, for the most part government should stay the fuck out of it.



> especially as the US right also champions protectionism and subsidies when it suits them, for instance with cotton farming.


 
Protectionism?  Is this a bad thing against other countries using economic warfare against their opposition?  SHit, look at China and how it's come to dominate.  Currency manipulation, state funded industry, child labor, slave labor, environmental disasters, non-existant labor protection and of course low societal costs all create an environment wherein they can siphon off labor and break another nation's industry if they are not protected from what is essentially an illegal and unfair advantage in another nation.  Every nation in the world does protectionism.  SO fucking what?



> The government (be it federal or state) even if usually via some SOE's is the customer which buys the electricity and supervises its supply to end users. So it is up to the government to decide which form of energy they will invest in and purchase.


 
Thanks for providing proof that publically owned utilities must be privatized.  They form artifical monopolies that then are protected from market forces driving the prices down, offering variety and locking people in to a higher price structure than should be available if free market forces were at play.  Again, government picking winners and losers and deciding for people what is best is a bad thing.



> That isn't leftist, it isn't social engineering and it certainly isn't interference


 
Bullshit.  It is exactly that for the reasons I posted above.  It's just as evil as smart growth.  Over here, in some states it's illegal to have only one cable company in a geographic area.  Those areas MUST provide 2-3 choices in an area for competition.  Those areas have the lowest cable prices possible.  If they are found to be colluding on prices, that's called a trust and is punishable by law.  Areas with geographical monopolies preventing competition have the worst service and highest prices with poorest quality because the consumer cannot choose to go elsewhere.  This is economics 101, and yes, I've taken that course.



> It's a given, an inate aspect of enery production as much as it is with the provision of water, roads or sewerage treatment.


 
You can privatize every one of these as well.  The most difficult would be roads because there IS a constitutional mandate for it to be done by the government.  Sewage?  Easily privatized just like garbage was/is in the US.  Most landfills and recycling centers here are privately owned.  In Minneapolis/St. Paul there are like 14 garbage companies and even more recycling companies.  Now that would drop if they got rid of government subsidies, but there would still be many to choose from if government did not mandate any one particular hauler.  Your argument does not pass the objective reality test of what currently is happening.



> As is so often the case, this need to reduce every debate to left/right is a shackle; it's a set of blinkers that allows only two possible outcomes or viewpoints.


 
How do you balance mutually exclusive worldviews like Government control versus individual freedom?

The left is almost always for government control, the right is almost always for individual freedom.  hmmmmm.... I wonder why?



> Personally, I couldn't give a shit if tidal power is left wing or right wing - if it makes sense, let's use it. If not, let's dump it.


 
The only point in which I agree with you this post.  BUT, we need an accurate and truthful discussion on the cost/benefits between it and other forms of energy creation SANS subsidization for either party.  That's how you know what's better once you compare the two.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I get it now.  Finland wants more options and is using Climate Change as a tool for gaining foreign funds to help.
> ...


Why do rich people hire accountants to dodge taxes or move their money to tax shelters or banks who won't report?

Efficiency and ability to keep what is theirs.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Even some of the rich shoplift.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> > he means that MY money WILL be used to line his pockets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause.  Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.

Is this the scientific method that you propose we all follow?  Perhaps burning a witch now and then might also help.

To the first point, there will always be some slush in government spending which is a great argument to not use government money.  If some snot nosed kid is directing other people's money to his pet project that he elects because it's stylish, waste and pay backs are garenteed.  if a private citizen is running a private business and trying to make ends meet, waste will be less extravagant and won't cost the rest of us due to his own stupidity.

You cling to the idea that this is not political.  This is simply not based in reality.  James Hansen works for NASA and makes more than his salary pontificating on Climate Driven Doom.  He's wrong and he is revered.  Is this science?  

Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize.  For what?  Peace?  Hardly!  He won it because he opposed the conservatives of the world and recommended a wealth transfer system to take from the haves and give to the have nots.  This is clearly political.

Obama won the same prize for doing even less.  The Nobel Committee is equally as misguided and bereft of integrity as is the UN.

By any rational measure, Climate science is politically motivated, based on corrupted science and aimed at justifying a transfer of wealth from the haves to the have nots.

To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that CO2, the most powerful driver of climate, has not risen consistently over the last 12 years and this is why the climate has cooled during that period.  Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.

Any rational review would conclude that CO2 is NOT the most powerful driver of climate and that those who assert that it is have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate at all. 

You are free to produce proof to convince me otherwise.

http://reasonabledoubtclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/hadleyv_co2trends.png


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

You're more than welcome to stop using electricity and modes of transportation requiring carbon products Saigon.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Water vapor is a stronger factor.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You're more than welcome to stop using electricity and modes of transportation requiring carbon products Saigon.



I don't get it...why would I want to do that?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Right - so there is some kind of evil Scandinavian conspiracy to get aid money....yes...that makes sense.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> There is no free market with energy. There never was, there never could be. Not unless you are going to allow all consumers to choose which method of energy production they prefer.
> 
> ...





To the extent that government direst it or pays for it, it's Liberal.

To the extent that it's privately financed and free of government direction, It's conservative.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

You have heard of carbon credits I presume?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Try the next size up in underwear bob.  Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.




You don't have him on ignore?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause.  Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.



Yes. Because at this stage I think we can say that we KNOW that human acitivity is influencing the climate. 

What we don't know is the extent of that influence. I'm sure experts can put parameters on that, but I haven't seen them. 

So it is essential that we act - and also because acting benefits us all in other ways. It makes sense to conserve energy for other reasons - one of which is reducing costs for households and businesses. 

I'll ignore all the Al Gore games - climate change science was known a century before Al Gore, and his influence was never anything to write home about outside the US anyway. Why do Americans obsess about the guy?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Try the next size up in underwear bob.  Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.
> ...



He does meet most of my criteria.  Not quite done with him as a chew toy yet.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that even though* CO2*, the most powerful driver of climate, has *not risen consistently over the last 12* years and this is why *the climate has cooled* during that period.  Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.



2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. 

NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 20002009. [1][2] 

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause.  Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.
> ...






Where is the Nobel Committee based?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...






He seems to have some kind of a key board based Tourett's disorder.  I couldn't take it anymore.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Yep, it was fun to watch him have episodes and get manipulated.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Where is the Nobel Committee based?



Sweden - so what?

I'm not seeing a point here at all. Trust me - if you listen to 100 conversations on climate change anywhere in the world outside the US, you'd be lucky to hear Gore's name once. 

He's less important to the climate change debate here than the impact of cow farts.

It's like Canadians assuming the rest of the world loves Loverboy and the Tragically Hip.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that even though* CO2*, the most powerful driver of climate, has *not risen consistently over the last 12* years and this is why *the climate has cooled* during that period.  Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.
> ...





Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water and a reliable method of measuring the temperature of Ocean water was not in place until about 5 years ago.  Being the warmest years since 1880 in an area that is 90% unmeasured is a little bit of a stretch, no?

Global climate change is not a thing that is measured by a stop watch.  Citing one year is citing weather.  Even citing a decade is a little ridiculous, but it demonstrates the ridiculousness of the CO2 based argument.

The Warmers argument is that CO2 is most important driver of climate.  Controlling the contribution of man to this trace element in the atmosphere is asserted to be the way to control the climate.  However, over a span of ten years, we know that this trace element in the atmosphere has increased while the climate has dropped.

Further, we know that even if we did decrease emissions and that decrease would have an impact, that impact would not be measurable for 100 years.

There is nothing in your argument that holds water.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> There is nothing in your argument that holds water.



Of course not. 

And damn that silly NASA and their damn communist games!! 

NASa must be funded by some solar panel company!!


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

...speaking of water...


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water .



Right....I'm sure Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Chile, Mozambique and Bolivia will be happy to hear that.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Greed is the desire for money unearned.  It is not the desire to keep what is earned.

I am not surprised you don't know the difference.

Some of the greediest people I know are the poorest.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the Nobel Committee based?
> ...





You said that Gore had no impact outside of the USA.

Sweden is outside of the USA.

Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his deceptive and disingenuous work on Climate Change.

Clearly, Gore had an impact at least on the Nobel Committee which is outside the USA.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing in your argument that holds water.
> ...





Well, their money does come from the same source that Solyndra was draining.

Why does our space agency spend all of its time researching climate which is notably not extraterrestrial?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

I think he meant to say that Algore has almost no influence IN the United States.  He's lauded by the rest of the ecofascisti world wide.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water .
> ...





What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880?  Any of the land masses you cite?  Again, where is the basis for your claims?

If there is no instrumental record, there is no point in citing the instrumental record.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 2, 2012)

If conservatives/sceptics are such wingnuts, how come the environmental radicals cant post up *one single link* that can illustrate how they are winning?

I can post up at least two dozen links showing domination by the skeptics ( not even including the scores of links about Cap and Trade being dead ) proving that this global warming crap is far more about being POLITICAL than it is about science. Thats life s0ns.......its called Realville. Despite the so-called mega-consensus, why is Cap and Trade dead as a doornail? By the assertions of the environmental radicals on here, it should have been a chip shot field goal from 2008 to 2010 when the left held political sway. But what happened? Nada........zero.........zilch.........egg.


So..................who's not winning?????



*>>to curious seekers of reality who are in this forum..........you will notice that all the environmental people invariably ignore my posts in here. Ask yourself why??:*


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> I think he meant to say that Algore has almost no influence IN the United States.  He's lauded by the rest of the ecofascisti world wide.



That really is the most staggering drivel.

Again - the fact that this is a political, partisan issue for you doesn't mean it is elsewhere. I've been really surprised at how blinkered and partisan your approach to this topic is. It really is possible to dismiss the political interests and view the technologies of osmotic, geothermal and coal without feeling you are being disloyal to your team. I just don't get the partisan bullshit at all.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880?  Any of the land masses you cite?  Again, where is the basis for your claims?
> 
> If there is no instrumental record, there is no point in citing the instrumental record.





> Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water and a reliable method of measuring the temperature of Ocean water was not in place until about 5 years ago.



So if measurements could not be made until 5 years ago - what places in the Northern Hemisphere were heavily instrumented in 1880?

Jesus man..this is just nosensical!!


----------



## Saigon (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> You said that Gore had no impact outside of the USA.
> 
> Sweden is outside of the USA.
> 
> .



Ha! Really? 

Wonderful stuff....and how many people around the world are aware of people like Jose Saramago, Adam G. Riess or Dan Shechtman?

Because they have also won Nobel Prizes, haven't they?

Al Gore has never been a major public figure outside of the US. Never and nowhere.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I think he meant to say that Algore has almost no influence IN the United States.  He's lauded by the rest of the ecofascisti world wide.
> ...


Denial.  It's not just a vector for Schistosomiasis anymore, is it?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880?  Any of the land masses you cite?  Again, where is the basis for your claims?
> ...



You're not improving your argument with this.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880?  Any of the land masses you cite?  Again, where is the basis for your claims?
> ...





That is my point.

The more densely populated areas of the USA and most of Britain were heavily instrumented from about 1930 forward.

The parts of Europe that were instrumented were covered, but not so much.  Bombing whole countries to dust tends to distract climatologists.

The northern extremes above the Arctic circle had far fewer people and far fewer measuring stations.

Warmers will quickly dismiss the temperature record of the USA during the late 30's saying that this is a small percent of the land mass of the world, but it was the part that was actually measured.

Even today there are vast areas that are estimated when measured by land stations.

The true instrument record started in about 1980 when the satellite measuring was documented.  This method lends itself well to worldwide measurements and is not subjected to the constant rigging needed for the various land stations to be made sensical.

So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.

You are recommending destroying the already shaky economies of the world based on this?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You said that Gore had no impact outside of the USA.
> ...






Your assertion was that he had no impact outside of the USA.

The award of the Nobel Prize destroys your assertion.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I, personally, find nothing peculiar or offsetting about windmills, at the least they aren't static structures. Large, moving, functional art. I'm sure designs could be improved upon but at this point the emphasis is properly on functionality not esthetics.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 2, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The plant did fine with the earthquake and it would have weathered the tsunami as well if they had bothered to place the back up generators on the roofs of the containment buildings like they had been told to do.  The tsunami wiped out the generators and that is what led to the meltdown.
> ...



The point is not to be focussed on finding one or even two solutions to our energy problems and needs. A diversity of distributed systems with a strong focus on building a versatile and robust national grid energy transmission and storage backbone.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.
> 
> You are recommending destroying the already shaky economies of the world based on this?


No, fucktard, we have enough data to show greenhouse theory, trends, and more trends, including ongoing disaster scenarios.  We have a game, called hockey, where we are at a standoff, headed for a face-off, since you keep spamming puckey, hooking without a stick, to skate off, leaving theorists to cross-check your non-links.

You skate off, like your form is so awesome, how could you not get a '10' for form?  But you are like a parading punk, in speedos, who wants the only public agenda to be for new bath-houses, never mind how we have all heard of HIV, by now.  Screw you, with plastic, punk! 

You mean by 'destoying the already shaky economies of the world,' we will have to lose the oil companies, somehow!  One more try, pull your stupid head, out of your fat, spotted ass!  Your head only lives up your ass because you like the taste, of your own shit.  Try some Jack Daniels and doughnuts, like your wingnutty wingmen scarf.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?
> ...







Western civ is worth a tremendous amount to me.  Why do you insist on destroying it?  More importantly how about doing something to prevent an asteroid strike which really can wipe us out.  We finally have a means of averting that particular method of destruction but you folks are so wrapped around your non-existant hysteria...all for the sake of money and power, that you'll watch the damned asteroid slam into the Earth and say "whoops, never thought that would happen..."


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.
> ...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM-G0bkl8MQ]That don&#39;t make no sense - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

No thanks for the spam, Big Poof.

It's Saturday.  Are all the wild wingnut wingmen going to marry each other, adopt us kids, and make us eat gay spam-sandwiches at the local Log Cabin Club diner?


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> No thanks for the spam, Big Poof.
> 
> It's Saturday.  Are all the wild wingnut wingmen going to marry each other, adopt us kids, and make us eat gay spam-sandwiches at the local Log Cabin Club diner?



Nope, being drunk doesn't improve your posting one bit.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PR_rzF8ofw]cocaine - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> [Nope, being drunk doesn't improve your posting one bit.


I don't drink, Savethetards.  I haven't had a drop of beer, in years of knowing you were queer.  I don't know why you don't go out.  I did a nice workout, today!

I guess you don't have any on-topic media, do you.  I urge you to go out, get a plain, old-fashioned dose of something, and keep it to yourself, rather than spam forums, with your tardy version of big oil meets the bendover boys.

But at this forum, all kinds of neo-cons with some kinda dose are cruising.  This place is more of a cruise, than a forum, thanks to you!  Your wingnutty wingman posted a vid.  I don't think it's on topic, and it won't load too well.  Eat shit and die, bimbo.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > [Nope, being drunk doesn't improve your posting one bit.
> ...







Then why do your posts read like they're from a beligerent drunk?  And, why are you such a homophobe?  Either you're a ultra rightwing sicko, or you're a sociopath.  So which are you?  Either way you've outlived your usefulness on this board.  No one will pay attention to a drunk homophobe.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 3, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> No thanks for the spam, Big Poof.
> 
> It's Saturday.  Are all the wild wingnut wingmen going to marry each other, adopt us kids, and make us eat gay spam-sandwiches at the local Log Cabin Club diner?








We're out enjoying life.  Quit showing off your ineptitude.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> The true instrument record started in about 1980 when the satellite measuring was documented.  This method lends itself well to worldwide measurements and is not subjected to the constant rigging needed for the various land stations to be made sensical.
> 
> So, in view of what we can actually rely on as accurate measurements of the wold's climate, we are limited to a period of about 35 years for the mid Troposphere and about 5 years for the oceans.
> 
> You are recommending destroying the already shaky economies of the world based on this?



I'm recommending we utilise what we can learn from ice core samples, and what we know about climate dating back at least hundreds of years. 

Of course our understanding of climate improves as our ability to monitor climate improves - but we have temperature records going back to the 1850s, and I see no reason not to consider it.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Denial of what.....?

You base your position on Gore's fame in the wider world entirely on your experience in the US - I base mine entirely on my experience in a dozen other countries. A dozen countries in which Gore's name has simply never been a factor one way or the other. 

It really is the most Americo-centric view imaginable that just because Gore is a famous politician in the US, he must be a famous politician everywhere. 

Do you really think the average person in Germany, South Africa or Brazil really follows the lives of people like Dan Quayle or Michael Dukakis?


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The true instrument record started in about 1980 when the satellite measuring was documented.  This method lends itself well to worldwide measurements and is not subjected to the constant rigging needed for the various land stations to be made sensical.
> ...






I agree, how do you explain the multi hundred year lag from the onset of warming to the subsequent increase in CO2 levels?



Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations 

Hubertus Fischer, 
Martin Wahlen, 
Jesse Smith, 
Derek Mastroianni and 
Bruce Deck

+ Author Affiliations

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Geosciences Research Division, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 920930220, USA. 

Abstract

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere. 

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations


Or....

Abstract
The phase relations (leads/lags) among atmospheric CO
2
content, temperature and global ice volume are key to understanding the
causes of glacial}interglacial (G}IG) climate transitions. Comparing the CO
2
record with other proxy variables from the Vostok ice
core and stacked marine oxygen isotope records, allows the phase relations among these variables, over the last four G}IG cycles, to
be estimated. Lagged, generalized least-squares regression provides an e$cient and precise technique for this estimation. Bootstrap
resampling allows account to be taken of measurement and timescale errors. Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO
2
variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3$1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume
variations by 2.7$1.3 ka. However, signi"cant short-term changes in the lag of CO
2
relative to temperature, subsequent to
Terminations II and III, are also detected. ( 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://www.manfredmudelsee.com/publ...nd_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

Westwall - 

Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?

I can never understand why posters ask questions, when they already know the answers. 

Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?

If not - then why ask at all?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The true instrument record started in about 1980 when the satellite measuring was documented.  This method lends itself well to worldwide measurements and is not subjected to the constant rigging needed for the various land stations to be made sensical.
> ...





Seriously, what is the quality of those records?  We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.

After he did this, the date he recorded was extrapolated to represent the areas not measured so if this guy was on the Arctic Circle, as an example, that temperature was applies to the whole northern portion of the Globe.

After that, this temperature was and all of the extrapolations were used to average the whole Globe and after that James Hansen and company pretty much just threw them out and wrote down whatever the hell they felt were better temps to use to make their argument.

This is just a slight notch above the proxy tree rings and mud cores.  Maybe a notch below.

However, using the best proxies available from science today, we find that we are cooler right now than we've been for about 5 million years sliding down by 7 degrees C over that period.

Over the last 65 million, we are down about 12 degrees.

We are not unusually warm right now.  We are unusually cool.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...




I don't know why they would.  The average American doesn't.

For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

In passing, I am a person that is quietly amazed when I flip the switch and the lights turn on on those occasions when I think of it.

Being able to carry on a conversation with so many folks far flung around the country and globe is truly awe insuring to an old codger such as me.

Also, Saigon, your English is excellent.  People who can master more than one language are, to me, like those who can play musical instruments like I hum or whistle.  An enviable and impressive ability.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.
> 
> BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'



It had a brief run at the movies here, too, and may have been on TV at some stage. 

Likewise the Michael Moore movies do get a run in theatres, but for most people they just aren't particularly relevent outside US borders. 

PS - thanks for the compliment! Much appreciated! I did live in New Zealand for a while, so that helped!


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Seriously, what is the quality of those records?  We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.
> 
> After he did this, the date he recorded was extrapolated to represent the areas not measured so if this guy was on the Arctic Circle, as an example, that temperature was applies to the whole northern portion of the Globe.
> 
> ...



I imagine the quality of those records is limited - although they may be useful for spotting trends year-on-year more than they are for comparisons with today. 

But in general I think we have a fairly good knowledge of the past, based on ice core samples and so forth. And certainly we have fairly solid records going back long enough that certain trends are immediately apparent. 

Like this one for instance....tell me you don't see an upwards trend there, and a particularly intense period in the past 5 years....


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, though, Gore's film was being shown to school children in Britain.
> ...





For me, the reason that Gore is a good poster child for this topic is that he was either deeply uninformed or was running a swindle.  His science was trash, his conclusions were baseless and the film was both disingenuous, to be generous, and unvarnished propaganda.

The result?  It was held up as a masterpiece by the Liberal Elite and he was awarded both an Academy Award over here and a Nobel Peace Prize over there.

It reveals him, the Liberal Elite and the Warmers for exactly what they are.

You may deduce what that is by the quality of the film and the research that went in to making it.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, what is the quality of those records?  We are talking about hundredths of a degree based on some old guy wandering out to his thermometer that may or may not have been accurate, was definitely the old glass tube on the wooden plank style, he was squinting through bifocals that may or may not have been prescription, and then he wandered back to his desk and wrote down what he thought he remembered.
> ...






NOAA and GISS are pretty much joined at the hip in terms of sharing data.

The link below shows the same period of time as represented by GISS first in 1999 and then in 2008.

I don't know all of the ins and outs of Climate Science, but the results of the ins and outs seems to be doing something unkind to the data.

&#8220;The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained&#8230;&#8221; | Watts Up With That?

And then there is this:

March: American Heat Vs. Global Temps - Science News

<snip>
While I normally rely on the UAH satellite record, when the University of East Anglia released their 2011 surface temperature data, I sorted their 20 warmest years in a reponse to someone who often claims "9 out of the 10 warmest years on instrument record have occurred since 1998". While recent years have been warm, the data suggests that we're at a plateau and may start cooling. &#8216;*&#8217; marks the last 10 years, ** marks the last 5:

1994 0.333
1991 0.343
1988 0.348
2000 0.361
1990 0.431

1997 0.463
1995 0.468
1999 0.489
2008 0.528 * **
2011 0.536 * **

2001 0.552
2004 0.611 *
2009 0.642 * **
2003 0.646 *
2002 0.664 *

2006 0.669 *
2007 0.678 * **
2010 0.713 * **
2005 0.747 *
1998 0.820

So, only eight of the last ten years now are in the top 10 and two of the last five years are in the top five. Various recent events may suggest a cooling trend - the negative PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation(, the week sun spot cycle, etc. Future events suggest more cooling - the AMO (Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation) should flip negative in a few years, sun spots may fade from view due to weakening magnetics on the Sun, and a new 2,500 year Tibetan tree ring study has retrospectively suggested that 2006 was the warm point and that there will be cooling to 2068 or so.
<snip>


----------



## Saigon (Jun 3, 2012)

Code - 

I hear a lot here about a cooling period, but I see little evidence of it. While the rate of temperature rise may not have been as steep in the past decade as in the preceeding decade, I understand 2009 still marked the end of the warmest decade on record. 

While predictions made 20 years ago may have overstated the case (as in that issue with how many of the warmest years occured in the past decade), but the figures you present still show a clear warming trend to me....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

The only way that one can get a 'cooling trend' is to compare all the years since 1998 with 1998, without any referance to the preceding years. And even then, 2010 matched 1998 for warmth. If one includes the polar regions, 2005 also matched 1998.

And April was the last month of a double La Nina. Yet it exceeded any month prior to 1998 in warmth. How one can say we are cooling looking that the present troposphere temperature is beyond me.

UAH Global Temperature Update for April 2012: +0.30°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Haven't we covered this about 20 times already?
> 
> ...





he asks because the reason behind the time lag in temps and CO2 is an important piece of his effort to understand what is going on with the climate. 



> Have you EVER heard ANYONE claim that people are the only factor influencing CO2 levels and/or the climate?



good question! I have heard both sides make strawman arguments but it is especially true that warmists project stupid views on the skeptics. skeptics dont deny that there has been some warming and some portion of that warming is attributable to man. skeptics dont deny that CO2 has risen and some portion of that rise is due to man.

what are the legs that CAGW stand upon? 1. we are warmer now than in past human history. 2. burning fossil fuel produces CO2 3. CO2 has a physical mechanism to decrease the loss of heat to space. 4. climate models with incomplete inputs project large temp increases due to _positive_ feedbacks. 5. every Tom, Dick and Harry put catastrophic conclusions about the effects of warming in their papers despite the unlikelyhood of the temperature rise happening that would be needed.

1. historical records by long dead people with no axe to grind in the climate wars show that the MWP was real. no one is farming in Greenland today. averaging _all_ the proxy records shows a distinct MWP, cherrypicking select proxies and using incorrect mathematical processing methodologies produces Hockey Sticks. temperature readings from the last 150 years should be reliable. are they? the amazing amount of 'adjustments' in the last 15 years makes me leery. and why do all the changes lead to higher temp trends? (except the short lived Y2K bug fix)

2. there is no doubt that we have put CO2 into the air. what _is_ in doubt is where it will end up and how long it takes for CO2 to turn over. old estimates of 15 years have now been replaced new numbers as variable and numerous as the papers producing them. what's the latest? 500 years? 1000 years?

3. CO2 has an important effect on heat loss, specifically in the first handful of doublings. now that we are working on the ninth doubling, not so much. one degree kelvin per doubling is not going to put us over the edge anytime soon.

4. the climate models focus on CO2 as an important driver instead of the small factor that it is. water in all it's facets drives the system. a small error in how the models handle clouds would totally overwhelm CO2's impact. a few billions of years ago the sun was perhaps 30% dimmer than now. yet there was still liquid water because of clouds and the water cycle. the biggest problem with the models is the unknown variable fraud. when you ignore aspects like solar and clouds (to a large extent) then all of that significance is misappropriated to the remaining variables, in this case CO2. the chance that increased evapouration is a positive feedback is very unlikely, why is there a limit to how warm the water gets at the equator? even mathematically positive feedbacks are unlikely because they lead to tipping points which have not happened in the past.

5. worst of all are the unwarranted conclusions of so many of the peer-reviewed climate science papers. they take a set of data (often poorly selected), torture it to show a predetermined response (often inappropriate methodologies), and at the end make proclaimations that are irrelevent to the evidence even if the data and methods were somewhat correct! remember such wonderful papers as Santer using wind shear as a proxy for temperature to show that maybe, perhaps the missing Hotspot wasnt totally, irrefutably ruled out? and not only did it get through peer review it was hailed as an important new advancement! when Mann got caught using a proxy _upsidedown_ after it was OKed by peer review was he forced to retract the paper? No! and his temp recontruction is _still_ being used as the basis for other climate science papers.


Saigon, I can understand your wish to believe all is well in climate science but it isnt. peer review has failed, group think has prevailed, and the disinfecting agent of open data release is _still_ being denied. you have been told a pretty story that seems to make sense because you dont seem to be open to hearing any of the criticisms. personally I dont know if the whole AGW theory has been proven wrong or not but I certainly know when you have to twist as many of the details as these guys do, then it is probably wrong. I dont buy into the whole "we have to lie because otherwise people wont believe us" story.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that. 

My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



*#1.   Calling bullshit on you, Ian.* 

Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine

Erik's bald-faced marketing worked. Some 4,000 Norse eventually settled in Greenland. The Vikings, notwithstanding their reputation for ferocity, were essentially farmers who did a bit of pillaging, plundering, and New World discovering on the side. Along the sheltered fjords of southern and western Greenland, they raised sheep and some cattle, which is what farmers in Greenland do today along the very same fjords. They built churches and hundreds of farms; they traded sealskins and walrus ivory for timber and iron from Europe. Erik's son Leif set out from a farm about 35 miles northeast of Qaqortoq and discovered North America sometime around 1000. In Greenland the Norse settlements held on for more than four centuries. Then, abruptly, they vanished.

*And the present day farmers are also raising potatoes.*

#2.   In other words, we are seeing that the amount of time is far longer than we initially thought. And this bolsters your case for the harmlessness of the increase how?

#3.   What the hell are you talking about? We started with the CO2 at 280 ppm. It is now above 390 ppm. To double, the CO2 level will have to be 560 ppm. We have not reached even the first doubling, and the glaciers are in rapid recession worldwide, the Arctic Ocean looks like it will be essentially ice free in the summer by 2030, possibly even 2020. By the records kept by the insurance companies of the world, the extreme weather events have increased by a factor of at least 3 in the last 40 years. 

#4.   Arrhenius, in 1896, accounted for water vapor in his estimate of the increase in temperature from rising CO2. No respectable researcher has negleced it since then. That you would repeat that old lie is amazing. 

The tipping points in the past involved clathrates in the ocean, and they, indeed, did happen. With catastrophic results for life at that time.

#5.   You know, Ian, you simply full of shit. The Mann graph has been replicated in other scientific studies, using differant proxies and data, over a dozen times. You are calling thousands of scientists liars and frauds. And the real research continues and is available to the public at sites such as this;

AGW Observer


----------



## IanC (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



1. june 2010? hahaha find something pre 1980

3. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512

4. we've argued this in the past. even the methane recently released was caused by conditions hundreds of years ago. at least according to the scientists studying it.

5. after all the available info you still stand steadfastly behind Mann. an amazing feat. how long have you been wearing blinkers? how many lies does he have to get caught in before you have even a little doubt?

the hockey stick has only been rehabilitated by using the same set of obnoxious proxies except that Mann used the upsidedown Tiljander core. you cant make a HS without at least one of the controversial proxies and a methodology that overweights outliers to the exclusion of all the other data.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

IanC said:


> O.R.:
> *#1.   Calling bullshit on you, Ian.*
> 
> Changing Greenland - Viking Weather - National Geographic Magazine
> ...


"1.  hahaha find something pre-1980"  OK, queers were in bath-houses, turning tricks, shooting speed, having unprotected anal sex, and hahaha, HIV went off the charts, and full-blown AIDS killed a lot of you guys

IanCrapforbrains, you are a zombie-fugitive, from a birther debate, trying to lalalalalalol your way out of playing some real hockey, for which you need a STICK.

But you're too damn gay for anything but puckey:  
"4. we've argued this in the past. even the methane recently released was caused by conditions hundreds of years ago. at least according to the scientists studying it."

This is the phenomenon, which will generate a lot of bend in the stick.  The warming and acidification are accelerating, and you are still denying four decades of progressive warming and acidification, with the same, Log Cabin-style rants, just like freaks who want more bath-houses, so they can turn more tricks, shoot more speed, and get the HIV rate up to Africa's:  "the hockey stick has only been rehabilitated by using the same set of obnoxious proxies except that Mann used the upsidedown Tiljander core. you cant make a HS without at least one of the controversial proxies and a methodology that overweights outliers to the exclusion of all the other data."

You can't argue with hockey.  It's a game you will have to play, with observation of ENSO, which you won't admit, with the same sort of tard-rants Trump uses, to prove Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.
> 
> My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.




The credit is misdirected.  The prediction was from Janet Raloff who authored the article from which the quote was cut and pasted.

Science News Staff Bios - Science News


----------



## code1211 (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...






Without gong to the trouble of searching for the link again, researchers have proven that the Norse who lived on the south tip of Greenland had diets that shifted from grain to meat, then fish as the centuries that they lived there.  I don't recall what the evidence was, but it was conclusive.

The obvious conclusion is that farming was eliminated for some reason as the years moved on.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 3, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Without gong to the trouble of searching for the link again, researchers have proven that the Norse who lived on the south tip of Greenland had diets that shifted from grain to meat, then fish as the centuries that they lived there.  I don't recall what the evidence was, but it was conclusive.
> 
> The obvious conclusion is that farming was eliminated for some reason as the years moved on.



Without going through the narcissism of quote in quote in quote and then raising a birther argument or suggesting we all razz Obama and hit the hot-tub at FastBoyz, I suggest the obvious conclusion is the Vikings didn't get along with the natives, called them 'skraeling,' and Vikings didn't learn to adjust their diet and habits, to changing conditions, and so, the Vikings died out, in the New World.  Shit happens, wingnuts.  You're next!

The Vikings perished, in the New World, just like petroleum over-consumers will do, all over the world, which is the hot-tub-meth-and-tricks outcome, which Tard1211 and his Log Cabin wingmen are all flying at.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Obviously not, unless it is some bizarre "kill the one you love" relationship, as you seem to be willing to do anything necessary to bind it, set it on fire and push it off a cliff in the deranged belief that there is more personal gain in doing so, than in correcting self-destructive behavior and investing in the technologies needed to progress into a difficult future filled with the consequences of past actions. 



westwall said:


> Why do you insist on destroying it?



What do you feel I am trying to destroy? 



> More importantly how about doing something to prevent an asteroid strike which really can wipe us out.  We finally have a means of averting that particular method of destruction but you folks are so wrapped around your non-existant hysteria...all for the sake of money and power, that you'll watch the damned asteroid slam into the Earth and say "whoops, never thought that would happen..."



I'm glad that you support an expansion of funding for space exploration and ground-based science research in general, it is unfortunate that so many of the same people trying to deny, obsfucate, and defund science in so many important areas (to include general space exploration and ground-based astronomy) do not seem to understand or care about the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> I agree, how do you explain the multi hundred year lag from the onset of warming to the subsequent increase in CO2 levels?



as a quick summary

Climate change has many potential causative factors. You seem to be referring to events like the early Holocene warming and most of the ice expansions and recessions of the last ~2 million years or so. These particular warmings were primarily driven by planetary orbital cycles. In these types of climate change, environmental CO2 acts as a feedback mechanism. Insolation changes due to incremental and cyclical orbital variation result in gradually warming surface conditions, as the surface conditions gradually warm, CO2 sinks in the environment begin emitting their stores of CO2 in a feedback cycle that accelerates and enhances the warming initially driven by cyclic orbital variations that create insolation changes.  

Now you want to talk about feedback systems that are becoming more active in our current episode of climate change, and the consequences of them matching and exceeding humanity's emissions? Situations where atmospheric CO2 levels could bump up to 3, 5, possibly even 10x their current values over the period of a few centuries.

Many of our


----------



## IanC (Jun 4, 2012)

Saigon- I realize that you think the politics behind the climate science wars, and the Hockey Stick in particular, are just tempests in a teapot and a case of he said/she said.

unfortunately the integrity of climate science is at stake. I wish I could send you my copy of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' but I can point you to 2 essays that describe the timeframe and two main points of an ongoing problem that is still festering.

the first one is about Yamal. cherrypicking and data hiding. this has been going on since 2005! a FOI court decision has finally come out in 2012 and it looks very bad for Briffa. but read about it for yourself and make up your own mind by investigating other sources. 

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal implosion


> The bristlecone pines that created the shape of the Hockey Stick graph are used in nearly every millennial temperature reconstruction around today, but there are also a handful of other tree ring series that are nearly as common and just as influential on the results. Back at the start of McIntyre's research into the area of paleoclimate, one of the most significant of these was called Polar Urals, a chronology first published by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. At the time, it was used in pretty much every temperature reconstruction around. In his paper, Briffa made the startling claim that the coldest year of the millennium was AD 1032, a statement that, if true, would have completely overturned the idea of the Medieval Warm Period.  It is not hard to see why paleoclimatologists found the series so alluring.
> 
> Keith BriffaSome of McIntyre's research into Polar Urals deserves a story in its own right, but it is one that will have to wait for another day. We can pick up the narrative again in 2005, when McIntyre discovered that an update to the Polar Urals series had been collected in 1999. Through a contact he was able to obtain a copy of the revised series. Remarkably, in the update the eleventh century appeared to be much warmer than in the original - in fact it was higher even than the twentieth century. This must have been a severe blow to paleoclimatologists, a supposition that is borne out by what happened next, or rather what didn't: the update to the Polar Urals was not published, it was not archived and it was almost never seen again.
> 
> ...



and another one describing the contortions that the Hockey Team and the IPCC went through to keep the HS in AR4.

- Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper


> Shortly after its publication, the hockey stick and its main author, Michael Mann, came under attack from Steve McIntyre, a retired statistician from Canada. In a series of scientific papers and later on his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre took issue with the novel statistical procedures used by the hockey stick's authors. He was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes, and criticised Mann for not publishing the cross validation R2, a statistical measure of how well the temperature reconstruction correlated with actual temperature records. He also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this kind of reconstruction.
> 
> The controversy raged for several years, involving blue riband panels, innumerable blog postings, endless name-calling and dark insinuations about motivations and conflicts of interest. In May 2005, at the height of the controversy, and on the very day that McIntyre was making a rare public appearance in Washington to discuss his findings, two Mann associates, Caspar Amman and Eugene Wahl, issued a press release in which they claimed that they had submitted two manuscripts for publication, which together showed that they had replicated the hockey stick exactly, confirmed its statistical underpinnings and demonstrated that McIntyre's criticisms were baseless.  This was trumpeted as independent confirmation of the hockey stick. A few eyebrows were raised at the dubious practice of using a press release to announce scientific findings. Some also noted that on the rare occasions that this kind of announcement is made, it tends to be about papers that have been published, or at least accepted for publication. To make such a dramatic announcement about the submission of a paper was unusual in the extreme.



there is much, much more about all this stuff available. it is really interesting to go back and read both Climate Audit and Real Climate (back when they were the heavyweight blogs) and see which side appeared more honest. since then the Climategate I and II emails have come out and supported all the shenanigans that the skeptics were bitterly complaining about. faulty methods, cherrypicking, journal interference, and outright scoffing at the principles of doing science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2012)

truly incredible.........the environmental nutters keep talking about the science as if doing so, over and over and over and over and over is going to change the dynamic in public policy which is what exactly this thread, obstensibly, is about. Its like an autistic person whacking their head off a wall 5,000 times in an effort to get something thats not coming. Even the goofball who started the thread is locked into the science talk.

Realville is the only place to be s0ns..........look over the water in Europe. Their fantasy-world for the last 40 years is not bringing them to the stark realization that retirement age isnt going to be 55. Its not even going to be 60. Experts are talking 80 s0ns........which is what happens when people insist on living outside of Realville. You can do the makey-uppey stuff all you want but in Realville........money matters. The world economy is teetering and the nutters think everything can be turned on its ear based upon some numbers from a computer model.

Simpletons are gay.............


----------



## Saigon (Jun 4, 2012)

Skooks - 

Do you think your posting might have more of an impact if you could read and write?

I have you on ignore mode anyway....I'm just wondering if there is anyone who doesn't...?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



OK. Yap-yap. No specifics. Other than you believe that the vast majority of the scientists in the world belong to this "liberal elite".

Care to point out in detail where Al Gores film had major errors?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> truly incredible.........the environmental nutters keep talking about the science as if doing so, over and over and over and over and over is going to change the dynamic in public policy which is what exactly this thread, obstensibly, is about. Its like an autistic person whacking their head off a wall 5,000 times in an effort to get something thats not coming. Even the goofball who started the thread is locked into the science talk.
> 
> Realville is the only place to be s0ns..........look over the water in Europe. Their fantasy-world for the last 40 years is not bringing them to the stark realization that retirement age isnt going to be 55. Its not even going to be 60. Experts are talking 80 s0ns........which is what happens when people insist on living outside of Realville. You can do the makey-uppey stuff all you want but in Realville........money matters. The world economy is teetering and the nutters think everything can be turned on its ear based upon some numbers from a computer model.
> 
> Simpletons are gay.............



Like Quantum Windbag, who admits he's gay.

Like the bath-house posses, who kept tricking, shooting speed, and tricking, until HIV became known, all the way to full-blown AIDS.

You simple, tinfoil-hat-wearing piece of Log Cabin gay shit!  Your pants are on fire.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 4, 2012)

Are Faithers big on ghost hunters too?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Are Faithers big on ghost hunters too?


Your post is spam.  If you want to post spam, put up ridiculous, cyclic argument, against biomass and re-greening, not complete shit, without reference, to:
1.  Whether you refer to people who have left Mother Earth, to colonize other worlds;
2.  or to dumbshit Christians of the future;
3.  or to fucktards who believe in God, Almighty.

Post on climate science, politics, or answer the OP, with a post about why climate science is political, which it is, since look at all the spam, by skeptics against science.  Climate-change skeptics may be the children of faithers, who have turned queer, but you guys are too chickenshit to come out and parade in the street, so you and your shit turn up here.

Write something worth crapping on, or parade on over to the flame zone and fuck with people who will call you the f-word or the c-word, and get away with it, asshole.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > truly incredible.........the environmental nutters keep talking about the science as if doing so, over and over and over and over and over is going to change the dynamic in public policy which is what exactly this thread, obstensibly, is about. Its like an autistic person whacking their head off a wall 5,000 times in an effort to get something thats not coming. Even the goofball who started the thread is locked into the science talk.
> ...




lmao.........

............seems I touched a nerve!!

I love when the self-loathing go mental on here!!!


ANd as to the efforts of the true believing dumbasses like Bob-o here...................


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Skooks -
> 
> Do you think your posting might have more of an impact if you could read and write?
> 
> I have you on ignore mode anyway....I'm just wondering if there is anyone who doesn't...?





All the k00ks have me on IGNORE mode = winning!!!!! On a daily basis, I send them running for the cabinet containing the Ativan!!

I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum. I dish out the real poop for them and highlight the level of fantasy that is concurrent with the green ideology. And I do it with the precision of a laser guided smart bomb..........which is also why every k00k on this message board has me on ignore.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2012)

Oh.....too.........lets not forget..................the bomb throwers are losing...........


A Case Against Climate-Change Alarmism - Forbes


http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/why-global-warming-alarmism-isnt-science.php

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/carbon-tax-alarmism-doesnt-fit-facts-scientists-warn/story-e6frg8y6-1226256747962



LMAO.......even George Bush was more interested in climate change than Obama is.................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/climate-change-obama-bush


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 4, 2012)

Hey Bob-o................


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 4, 2012)

Saigon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > European governments are not conservative. They are all bankrupt socialists. LMAO!
> ...



The are all socialist policies. That is why they call leftists center and conservatives far right.

Forget the name.  They would list Clinton as a far right fascist skin head. Look at the policies.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.
> 
> My prediction? Continued increase, with a real bump at the next El Nino. By 2030, once again exceeding any one's expections, with the consequences far greater than the predictions.









I stick by my original prediction (which I gave last year) cooling for the next 20 years with occasional blips of warmth.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








I think it's you and your kind who have no concept of the catastrophe that would follow if your goals were met.  Your policies if implemented would bankrupt the entire world within a generation.  Societies would collapse and billions would die.  You see, there really is no such thing as a "sustainable lifestyle".  

You either produce more than you need and use it to trade or otherwise enrich yourself and your society or you make do.  Making do will work until the first hard winter hits and then you get to starve because you don't have enough excess to take you through a rough year....or five years as oftentimes happens.

You also ignore history.  The historical record is filled with examples of how prosperous the planet was when it has been warmer.   Your "science" is the only one I know of that ignores the past.  Whatever happened 40 years ago is irrelevant to you.  Why is that?  Could it be becaue it shows your concenrs to be unfounded?

As far as scientific and space research goes I have allways been and will allways be in favour of GOOD scientific research.  What the AGW crowd has done however is not good scientific research, it is an example of the worst case of Lysenkoism the planet has seen in decades.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, how do you explain the multi hundred year lag from the onset of warming to the subsequent increase in CO2 levels?
> ...







Your version of feedback only works if water vapor is a positive forcer.  The reality just might be that it is a negative forcer.  The AGW supporters have NEVER investigated that possibility, instead they _ASSUMED_ it was positive with no evidence to support that.
They have based EVERYTHING on that fact.  What happens if they're wrong?  Why have they never bothered to investigate that possibility.

You claim sceptics are anti science and yet the AGW movement is the most blindered "science" ever.  You look at a single thing and accept that as gospel.  I'm sorry, but that's not scientific enquiry, that's dogma.


Evidence for Negative Water Feedback | Clive Best

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> I think it's you and your kind who have no concept of the catastrophe that would follow if your goals were met.  Your policies if implemented would bankrupt the entire world within a generation.  Societies would collapse and billions would die.  You see, there really is no such thing as a "sustainable lifestyle".
> 
> You either produce more than you need and use it to trade or otherwise enrich yourself and your society or you make do.  Making do will work until the first hard winter hits and then you get to starve because you don't have enough excess to take you through a rough year....or five years as oftentimes happens.
> 
> ...


You are a piece of shit that sings songs to yourself, while posting this smear, leaving a load of lines, between quote in quote in quote and your effete rants.

"Your "science" ". . . asshole, quit quoting yourself, while you spam the thread, with your fucktard rants!  Use commas, where needed, for coherence.  But Wally-rants don't need to be coherent, since Wally is so fuckin' magnificent.  Oh, look.  Wally the voodoo-bitch calls AGW 'Lysenkoism.'  

It'll get hot enough for you, this Summer, Wally.  And then it'll get hot enough for you to do something about it, or die, unless you are already too fucking old, then so what.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's you and your kind who have no concept of the catastrophe that would follow if your goals were met.  Your policies if implemented would bankrupt the entire world within a generation.  Societies would collapse and billions would die.  You see, there really is no such thing as a "sustainable lifestyle".
> ...








  And you're a loon that no one gives a crap about.  I will no longer interact with you because I don't feed trolls.  Goodby troll.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





West bro........Im hoping this cheesedick stays around a long time. I love publically humiliating the k00ks, but the angry miserable ones amp up the level of personal entertainment a whole lot. This dope is one of those zero tolerance asshats who loaths his own existence and hates life........the profile define the far left in our society. West.........these are the meatheads to bullseye on these forums for the routine public pwn, thus, the curious who wander into this forum can get educated on what we mean by the true believer nutters.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

Climate change would be awesome!  A change in the zone for plants would increase my sales of plant suited to the new zone and more irrigation systems to install.  Growing seasons would be extended and more crops could be grown in my area.  Fruits would be better priced and more local.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Of course, spamming assholes.  We need climate change and acidification, to end the food chains, so we get along even better!  You don't have longer growing seasons, with acidification, salting of soil, and failure of the Ogalalla Acquifier.  

You have an end to the oceanic food chain, and then the US breadbasket fucks up.  The oceans either bloom algae or bacteria.  The trade currents fuck up.  The sea level rises, while the land subsides, simultaneously.  I wonder if some tribe will barbecue wingpunk meat, and will they give any to me, if I'm hungry?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> I think it's you and your kind who have no concept of the catastrophe that would follow if your goals were met.



Well, if the quality and character of your thinking were of relevence or significance, we probably wouldn't see you on these boards much.



> Your policies if implemented would bankrupt the entire world within a generation.  Societies would collapse and billions would die.  You see, there really is no such thing as a "sustainable lifestyle".



Simply and utterly wrong, but I'm sure you know that already.  



> You either produce more than you need and use it to trade or otherwise enrich yourself and your society or you make do.  Making do will work until the first hard winter hits and then you get to starve because you don't have enough excess to take you through a rough year....or five years as oftentimes happens.



You are the one arguing that we conservatively must make do, tighten our belts, adapt to our own waste and pull ourselves up by our own gnawed through bootstraps. I'm trying to get people to invest in their future, produce less waste and take advantage of innovation, trade and international cooperation.



> You also ignore history.



You keep wanting to repeat the same historic mistakes the rest of us learned from the first several times it was tried and failed.   



> The historical record is filled with examples of how prosperous the planet was when it has been warmer.



Humans have not been around in times warmer than it is currently.



> As far as scientific and space research goes I have allways been and will allways be in favour of GOOD scientific research.  What the AGW crowd has done however is not good scientific research, it is an example of the worst case of Lysenkoism the planet has seen in decades.



There is no science or compelling evidences that support your beliefs, no wonder you find little use in such issues of reality.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Your version of feedback only works if water vapor is a positive forcer.



I see your understandings of feedback is as poor as the rest of your scientific understandings. 



> Evidence for Negative Water Feedback | Clive Best



not just blog science, journal rejected drool spatters in which you seem to find images of puppies and butterflies. 



> Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming



So you feel that the fact (according to this paper's findings) that water vapor amounts to a small fraction of the warming forced by anthropogenic ghgs and that the authors of the paper don't draw any conclusions in their stating that it's not clear whether the water vapor changes are caused by a climate feedback or decadal variability:



> ...Our analysis focuses only on estimating the contributions of stratospheric water vapor changes to recent decadal rates of warming; additional contributions such as from solar variations (33), aerosols, natural variability, or other processes are not ruled out by this study.
> 
> ...It is therefore not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability. Current global climate models suggest that the stratospheric water vapor feedback to global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is weak...



No mainstream climate researcher that I am aware of ignores nor misattributes water vapor in their consideration of climate change issues


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

You sure venturing into models is where you want to go?  Please, tell us what the models said about the 2011 hurricane season.  Where are sea levels supposed to be based on 1990 predictions?

Maybe you want to take a step back and tell us how the locations of data collection are accurate?  Yes, we know all about the heat sinks surrounding many stations.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You sure venturing into models is where you want to go?  Please, tell us what the models said about the 2011 hurricane season.  Where are sea levels supposed to be based on 1990 predictions?
> 
> Maybe you want to take a step back and tell us how the locations of data collection are accurate?  Yes, we know all about the heat sinks surrounding many stations.


Save shit and post a link, asshole.  Support your spam with some puckey.


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 5, 2012)

So Trakar makes his living off of climate change fears.  Go figure.


----------



## Polk (Jun 5, 2012)

Never expect a man who denounce the people who are paying him.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 5, 2012)

Polk said:


> Never expect a man who denounce the people who are paying him.


That's truth for the vast vast majority of the people.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...








I will have to disagree with you on this asshat Skooks.  He is an example of the worst possible kind of troll.  He has no brain, he is merely an Id.  Pure reaction and hate against everything and everyone.  If AGW were to be proven correct he would merely migrate over to some other subject to hurl his vitriol.

He is best left ignored to whither and die in his own dark prison of a room.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's you and your kind who have no concept of the catastrophe that would follow if your goals were met.
> ...








Refer to everyone of your little missives and feel free to prove any of my points wrong.  I find it laughable that you think that humans havn't been around during any of the previous warmings of this planet.  You MUST be a creationist.  Your opinion only has merit if the planet were indeed created 6,000 years ago.

You really, REALLY, need to look at paleo climate and of course reading some of mans written history would probably be illuminating to a religious person such as yourself.  I suggest the Domesday Book as a good start for you.  tax records are pretty complete and show things being grown in the North of England that could only be grown in a greenhouse today.

Your continuing myopia is remarkable for someone who claims to be interested in science.
The Vatican is more interested in real scientific enquiry than you are.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your version of feedback only works if water vapor is a positive forcer.
> ...








Show me a single computer model that addresses water vapor.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your version of feedback only works if water vapor is a positive forcer.
> ...



Water Vapor

This 2008 information notes, lower clouds are on the increase, relative to high clouds.  This means warming is to be expected.  A lot of variance is evident, in the several models, none of which predict, based on the carbonic acid-carbonate exchange or on released sequestered methane, which will see the planet in hell, by 2050.

Models hone picture of climate impacts : Nature News & Comment

--This is about an upcoming model project, which will try to eliminate past bias:

Climate-impact models combine projections of change in physical climate with data on population, economic growth and other socio-economic variables. For various emissions scenarios, they forecast climate-driven changes in crop yields, vegetation zones, hydrology and human health (see &#8216;The browning of the planet&#8217. But they often leave out important elements: for example, models of health impact often neglect the role of social factors in spreading disease; and models of water run-off may not account for changes in water loss from plants. Researchers have built dozens of models, but have never systematically compared their performance. As a result, say critics, the literature on climate impacts is as inconclusive as it is encyclopaedic.

&#8220;Impact research is lagging behind physical climate sciences,&#8221; says Pavel Kabat, director of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, which is to coordinate the fast-track programme jointly with the PIK. &#8220;Impact models have never been global, and their output is often sketchy. It is a matter of responsibility to society that we do better.&#8221;

The programme, dubbed the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), involves more than two dozen modelling groups from eight countries, and they have set themselves a tight deadline. At the kick-off meeting at the PIK, the researchers agreed to complete a comprehensive set of model experiments within six months. All the simulations will cover the globe at the same resolution, and will be based on the same set of climate data from state-of-the-art climate models, driven by the latest greenhouse-gas emission scenarios (R. H. Moss Nature 463, 747&#8211;756; 2010).

The comparison should reveal systematic biases that lead models to give widely differing results.  etc.

http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters/C07/E2-26-18.pdf

This is a 2012 paper, but I couldn't get it to load, so you guys look at it, if you have time.  That trick you do with letting 10 lines go before you write something after quote in quote in quote sure does suck, Wally.  With quoting yourself and your other punk moves, you should eat shit and die, you miserable, narcissistic bitch.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





Actually West........as Ive said on here numerus times and being in the field of psychology, its actually not at all an intelligence thing for these people. Its a thought processing disorder. There is a big difference. That latter is fixable if the setting screws are reset and the only way to do that is with a pharmachological aid and Im dead serious. These people are ODC with this stuff West.......an offshoot of a more general depressive disorder. The effect is to completely dismiss any other information because the brain wont allow it. This guy Bob-O gets hysterical about this shit..........he's sitting home waiting for some weather event to set off a apocoliptical spiral downward and there is nothing you, I or anybody else in the world is going to be able to say to facilitate a different thinking process. In other words, the dots will never be connected until the serotonin levels are adjusted in the brain. Its quite that simple.


Meanwhile however, what we can do is highlight this level of fuckedupedness in the thinking to the few who end up coming in here searching for answers on this debate..........those that are seeing that the "consensus" isnt at all a consensus and that the "consensus" is being used by very clever people who are mega-profiting in the world of green energy. Then there are the scientists who benefit enormously from perpetuating the angst. Its all about special interests but the OCD's cant at all see it. They see special interests only in certain areas and not others. These are people who implicitly trust government.


Essentially West.........its a brain fuck up thing...............and I revel in highlighting it to all...................


Plus.........its great to come to a place where all you do is win. No matter what these nutters say, I win. They lose. Every single day. A huge majority of the public doesnt give a rats ass about all the science shit these dolts talk about on here. They are nutty enough to think they are going to create a groundswell from this Godforsaken corner of the internet. Fine by me. Making fun of fools is what I do best..........been doing it for decades.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...





So your vast research into this has not revealed to you the depth of the lying and deception required to win an Academy Award and  Nobel Peace Prize?

According to the court in Britain that ordered a disclaimer be added to the film, these are the nine departures from reality:

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

<snip>
The nine points: fact or fallacy?

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"

· This article was amended on Friday October 12 2007. A panel in the article above listing the significant errors found by a high court judge in Al Gore's documentary on global warming was labelled The nine points, but contained only eight. The point we omitted was that the film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist". The missing point has been added.
<snip>


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Climate change would be awesome!  A change in the zone for plants would increase my sales of plant suited to the new zone and more irrigation systems to install.  Growing seasons would be extended and more crops could be grown in my area.  Fruits would be better priced and more local.





You install Irrigation systems?

Do you live in Indianapolis?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> The nine points: fact or fallacy?
> 
> · The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
> 
> ...



1.  The Maldives are threatened;
2.  The trade currents are threatened, in the same way the jet stream is getting weird;
3.  Al also failed to endorse methane, concisely enough, or legal pot, or switchgrass;
4.  Kilimanjaro has lost ice, but so what, 97% of the world's glaciers are receding;
5.  Africa is over-populated, ad BP judge;
6.  Katrina is a good example of a big storm, which will be more likely to occur;
7.  I'm so sure judge BP could find all the polar bears, including the ones mating with Alaskan brown bears, now, so GIGO;
8.  Reefs are predicted to fail completely, from carbonic acid distress, by 2050;
9.  Judge BP doesn't know one way or another, so that is why they have locks on the Thames, now;

Sniff the Queen's farter, gawdsavus!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You sure venturing into models is where you want to go?  Please, tell us what the models said about the 2011 hurricane season.  Where are sea levels supposed to be based on 1990 predictions?
> 
> Maybe you want to take a step back and tell us how the locations of data collection are accurate?  Yes, we know all about the heat sinks surrounding many stations.



2011 Hurricane predictions and climate issues nor based upon climate models, so I'm not really sure why this interests you, that said:

NOAA predictions for Atlantic Hurricane season
NOAA hurricane outlook indicates an above-normal Atlantic season



> 12 to 18 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which:
> 
> 6 to 10 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including:
> 
> 3 to 6 major hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5; winds of 111 mph or higher)



2011 Atlantic storm record:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/summary_atlc_2011.pdf



> 19 named storms
> 
> 
> 7 became hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher)
> ...



1990 sea level predictions by 2010 - between 2.25 cm and 4.5 cm above 1990 averages

Actual sea level rise from 1990 averages as measured in 2010 - approximately 7.5 cm.

Early IPCC predictions were based on a 1.9mm per year rise, the average over the last 22 years has been 3.4 mm/year and this is increasing.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Show me a single computer model that addresses water vapor.



Every AOGCM in use includes water vapor formulae and factorizations

8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models

Global climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Future of the World's Climate: A Modelling Perspective - Google Books


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > The nine points: fact or fallacy?
> ...






back on topic please............


Science discussion highly gay on this thread............


For the fourth request on this tread............ where can a single k00k display for me that the science is mattering?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore&#8217;s An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that &#8220;Al Gore&#8217;s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate&#8221; (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged &#8220;errors&#8221; (note the quotation marks!) in the movie&#8217;s description of the science. The judge referred to these as &#8216;errors&#8217; in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that). 


There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, &#8220;An Inconvenient Truth&#8221; was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge&#8217;s characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore&#8217;s mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren&#8217;t). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how &#8220;Guidance Notes&#8221; for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support &#8211; AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.

A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis&#8217;s wiki), and it is clear that the purported &#8216;errors&#8217; are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

PM 'rejects' Tuvalu on sea level - National - theage.com.au

TUVALU, the Pacific island nation in danger of going under if sea levels rise, was rejected by Prime Minister John Howard when it last sought a meeting on the topic, according to senior officials there.

Ian Fry, adviser to the Tuvalu Government's Environment Department, told The Age that Tuvalu Prime Minister Maatia Toafa requested a meeting with Mr Howard at last October's Pacific Islands Forum in Fiji to discuss the looming climate-change crisis facing the island, but was denied.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

still not seeing anything remotely resembling how the science is changing the politics.

Can we please stay out of the Twilight Zone?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

RealClimate: Convenient Untruths

Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not &#8220;errors&#8221; at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.

*So the upshot of these claimed "errors" is that the judge recommended that there be further discussion of them after the film was shown. Interesting in that this would lead to more real research into the issue. And that is all to the good, for when anyone examines the science, they realize that we have a major problem on our hands, one that endangers all of humanity.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

The future of clean energy: Grey with tints of green | The Economist






*>>Note the skooks sources compared to hyperpartisan links posted up by the environmentalists<<*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

Natural gas: Shale of the century | The Economist


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

more bonafide stuff....................not stuff from hyper-green websites!!!

Obama's Green Energy Investment Continues to Deliver Lousy Results - Investors.com


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

This goofball lefty president spent 90 billion on green energy sincce 2009............90 fucking billion............and how many jobs has it netted?????


*16,100*


Put a liberal in charge of anything and you get lots of wasted money ( LOTS)!!!!


Meanwhile, from Cananda to Mexico, 75,000 jobs gained in oil and gas despite the knucklehead blocking Keystone!!!


Whos losing?>??



real link says................... Green energy jobs far short of Obama goal | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Got your ass handed to you on that peice of idiocy, Walleyes.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.


All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.


And you can bet your ass that I'll be hard on MSNBC at 9 to watch the epic display of misery by the panel of nutty asses.


90 billion on green energy.............those days are ending real, real soon.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well Code, I will give you credit for at least having the balls to make your prediction. Most of the deniars here will not do that.
> ...



0.30 for April, 0.29 for May.  Both numbers above any high point prior to the 1998 El Nino. That's some cooling, Walleyes.

UAH Global Temperature Update for May 2012: +0.29°C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 5, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.
> 
> 
> All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.
> ...


Live coverage of it starts here from local Green Bay hosts.  Jerry Bader's pretty darn good.

Listen Live - WTAQ News Talk 97.5FM and 1360AM


----------



## Trakar (Jun 5, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> By the way..........tune in tonight at 9pm to take a gander at the Wisconsin election results.
> 
> 
> All this goofball lefty nonsense is on its way to getting mothballed in 5 months. Tonight is the watershed........an appetizer for guys like me, West, Ian, Frank and Wirebender.
> ...



Why is this of interest to a climate change board?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> RealClimate: Convenient Untruths
> 
> Last week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that Al Gores presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged errors (note the quotation marks!) in the movies description of the science. The judge referred to these as errors in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).
> 
> ...




The comments from the judge are a better representation on the thoughts of the judge than are the comments from another on the comments from the judge.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

Because it is far easier to twist numbers on matter like that, than argue climate change, which involves understanding and posting real science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RealClimate: Convenient Untruths
> ...



The judge stated that the film was broadly accurate and cleared for showing in schools.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> RealClimate: Convenient Untruths
> 
> Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.






And this explains why the "batting average for NOAA in predicting the hurricanes and storms for any season from 2000 forward has been about .500.

Seriously, they could do as well guessing with no equipment, cost, experience or training whatsoever.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RealClimate: Convenient Untruths
> ...



Both Swiss Re, and Munich Re state that there has been an increase of extreme weather events by a factor of 3 to 5 in the last 40 years.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






The judge said that it was broadly accurate and that it was propaganda.  He demanded that this be made clear to the kids as it is biased and not entirely supported by science.

<snip>
The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore's views were not supported or promoted by the government, and there was "a view to the contrary".
<snip>


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





We're not talking about reviewing history.  we are talking about using science to predict what has not happened yet.

NOAA knows more about doing this than any other organization on earth and they aren't any better than a kid throwing darts at a board.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Seems another nutter has just been slapped down on this very issue. Can you talk in something other than 'talking point'?*

Quote: Originally Posted by saveliberty  
You sure venturing into models is where you want to go? Please, tell us what the models said about the 2011 hurricane season. Where are sea levels supposed to be based on 1990 predictions?

Maybe you want to take a step back and tell us how the locations of data collection are accurate? Yes, we know all about the heat sinks surrounding many stations.
2011 Hurricane predictions and climate issues nor based upon climate models, so I'm not really sure why this interests you, that said:

NOAA predictions for Atlantic Hurricane season
NOAA hurricane outlook indicates an above-normal Atlantic season


Quote:
12 to 18 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which:

6 to 10 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including:

3 to 6 major hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5; winds of 111 mph or higher) 

2011 Atlantic storm record:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/summary_atlc_2011.pdf


Quote:
19 named storms 
7 became hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher) 
4 became major hurricanes (Category 3, 4, or 5; winds of 111mph or higher) 

1990 sea level predictions by 2010 - between 2.25 cm and 4.5 cm above 1990 averages

Actual sea level rise from 1990 averages as measured in 2010 - approximately 7.5 cm.

Early IPCC predictions were based on a 1.9mm per year rise, the average over the last 22 years has been 3.4 mm/year and this is increasing. 
__________________
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.





What the Gore movie shows is Florida and half of the Eastern USA under water.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

Yes, it does. After the melting of a major amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. At a long time in the future. But that will happen if the Arctic Ocean clathrates let go. And there are many disturbing indictations from that region.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - METHANE

The most catastrophically dangerous methane source is Arctic sea floor
methane hydrate. This is frozen solid methane gas under pressure in sea floor
sediments. The largest source of Arctic methane hydrate is the East Siberian
Arctic shelf (ESAS) , the largest continental shelf in the world. Methane is now
venting to the atmosphere from under the shelf. All the evidence indicates that
an abrupt massive release of methane gas from Arctic hydrates could happen
which most likely would be catastrophe to the global climate and our planet.

The next great immediate danger are the vast regions of Arctic and subarctic
wetlands. These are peat lands that hold the most carbon of any of the
world&#8217;s soils. They naturally emit some methane but as they warm they put out
methane. The can respond rapidly to a jump in Arctic warming putting out much
more methane.

The third huge methane source is the vast regions of permafrost. As the world
warms the permafrost is thawing and is emitting methane. Permafrost can&#8217;t
respond rapidly to a jump in warming but its thawing at some point becomes
irreversible.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.

This is total rejection of tax and spend BS...........and think about the ammunition Romney has as we approach November talking about how Obama spent 90 billion on green energy and netted 16,000 jobs.


fucking priceless...........


The earthquake before the tsunami in November............and not even the nuttiest of the k00ks can blame it on global warming!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 5, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fI8834iCgo]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

Suckassbil big-spam-boom.   

  So, Suck.  If you don't have anything to write, slide on by Quantum Windbag and join his suck-sock Navy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2012)

Wait'll Romney rolls this out in the debates......................


Green energy jobs far short of Obama goal | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner


*90 billion for 16,000 jobs*






*>>Yo Bob-0.....did the pink just for you s0n<<*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2012)




----------



## saveliberty (Jun 6, 2012)

The Kooks usually run and start a new thread on the same topic about now.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The Kooks usually run and start a new thread on the same topic about now.



How about we just pump some relevent and referenced information into this thread instead, a "recycling" if you will.

Perhaps one of the reasons that climate change has become a poster-child for so many ideological arguments is that the science involved portends implications that spread across the spectrum of human interaction. Mike Hulme has written a book that was published back in 2009 entitled "Why we Disagree about Climate Change." Here is a link to the book's preface and chapter#6. It is an interesting read that I think provides information and understanding regardless of the perspective one brings to the subject.


"Why We Disagree about Climate Change" - http://wiki.umt.edu/odccss/images/b/ba/Why_we_disagree.pdf

You can read the link yourself so I'm not going to quote any large blocks of text but there are some main ideas presented that I feel are not only relevent to this thread, but also generally helpful for each of us to look at and understand what we and others bring to the discussion of climate change.

Climate change was initially presented to society in the manner of most physical science, but as the impacts and influences of this science became more evident, it has shifted places in people's thinking. No longer do most people look at climate change as the set of science principles and facts related to how our planet's environment is changing, and instead it has become how the unique mix of each of our social, cultural, political and ethical considerations are filtering and redefining what climate change and the impacts we expect from it mean to us individually.

Before effective long-term plans can be activated with regards to climate change, we are going to have to learn to understand where these different perspectives are coming from and what we are going to have to do to get everyone working together to arrive at a mutually satisfying resolution.    

Hulme breaks these perspectives down into several categories, a few of the ones he mentions are:

Climate Change as justification for a coomodification of the atmosphere, and fossil fuel feedstocks.

Climate Change as inspiration for global cooperation  

Climate Change as a security threat

One of the most interesting aspects of Hulme's exploration of climate change is the fact that individuals tend to frame, narrate, picture and interpret climate change in very different ways. Climate change is framed in multiple ways by both the people presenting ideas and by the people who are filtering what they receive from presentations.

Interesting stuff, I encourage all to read this, regardless of personal perspective on the topic, if nothing else it might help us all to relate a little better to other people and their perspective


----------



## code1211 (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, it does. After the melting of a major amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. At a long time in the future. But that will happen if the Arctic Ocean clathrates let go. And there are many disturbing indictations from that region.
> 
> Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - METHANE
> 
> ...






And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?

That point from Gore specifically was denied by the judge as being unsupported.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 6, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does. After the melting of a major amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica. At a long time in the future. But that will happen if the Arctic Ocean clathrates let go. And there are many disturbing indictations from that region.
> ...


Your judge was a punk who sucks balls under the BP boardroom table.  The methane release is documented and current, methane is a pernicious GHG, which will trigger runaway global warming, Gore only vaguely addressed acidification and he ignores re-greening, to let the tea-room queers shoot their speed and trick in his face, and Britain is a BP tea-room.  

Over here in the US are a load of Christians and Log Cabin boyz, who eat Brit-shit.  You are one of those intriguing, closet-case guys, aren't you, codeDownlow.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.







Yeah, those things _NEVER _happened ever before, nope not ever....Below are links to 3 storms from the 1890's and I tossed one in from 1933.  This refutes the bullshit meme that the storms of today are any different than those of the past.  Punch in ANY year you wish and you will see that the same thing happens every year.  In other words olfraud when you predict that it's going to get dark at night you can bet a good amount of money that you'll be right...but is that really a prediction?

Another epic fail on the part of the religious zealots.

Baltic Sea storm flood 1872

The Chesapeake/Potomac Hurricane of August 23, 1933s

The Great Louisiana Hurricane of 1812 - New Orleans History & Culture | Examiner.com

1899 Atlantic hurricane season - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.
> ...





Shhhh........Gaia might be watching. The Environmentalists' God can bring fire and brimstone upon the planet.


All silliness aside, if Jesus, Allah, and Gaia walk into a bar, which two of them are going to leave together?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And after the weather disasters in 2010, 2011, the 'apocalyptic' vision looks like an accurate prediction.
> ...


Shit.  You should look at some of the 'fresh water hurricanes' that have happened on the great lakes.  Many between the years of 1871 and 1940.  Boy I'm rusty.  I can't recall many off of the top of my head, but the Lake Huron blow in 1913 (IIRC) killed more sailors, sank more steel ships and damaged more shipping than any other single blow in history.  The Armistice Day Storm in 1940 was a whopper on Lake Michigan too.  Killed people a hundred miles inland from it's severity.  Lake Erie and Lake Superior both have had incredibly big storms too.  I also remember the Mataafa Storm of 1905.  THat's a freaky one.

Big storms come and go.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2012)

Hey Fitz............check this out...........they tracked down Bob-O right after the Wisconsin recall results.............


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEwXa197uBU]The Most Disappointed Barrett Supporter In Wisconsin - YouTube[/ame]

WHo knew??!!!


LMAO..............fairy...............


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 7, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Fitz............check this out...........they tracked down Bob-O right after the Wisconsin recall results.............
> 
> 
> The Most Disappointed Barrett Supporter In Wisconsin - YouTube
> ...


LOL Skook.  Yeah, I saw that about an hour after it was shot.  Laughing my ass off.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.



? what does this have to do with climate change, climate science, or anything even remotely related to environment?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?
> 
> That point from Gore specifically was denied by the judge as being unsupported.



I am not aware of any judge "denying" anything. In the UK rulings on the showing of Gore's documentary to UK school children, the judge did rule that certain sections did not seem to present information that was fully in accord with IPCC statements of the time, but he didn't deny or reject any of the film, and only found that some areas needed to be properly qualified and referenced, which was accomplished with the discussion guidelines developed by the UK education department.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> All silliness aside, if Jesus, Allah, and Gaia walk into a bar, which two of them are going to leave together?



It's your fantasy, I'm sure you'll come up with the answer you like best.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.
> ...






The thread asks why Climate science is political.  I suppose politics as well as climate are fair game.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?
> ...





Are similar disclaimers required for Math books?  English?  Real live science books?

If a judge is saying that showing a film requires that the major points of the film be pointed out as wrong, that should be a red flag alert.

This film is a piece of trash.  The science is wrong on its face and the erroneous nature of the science is amplified by the intentional lies and unfounded implications of the narrator.

From small things like Polar Bears not being able to swim 60 miles to the imminent drowning of the United States, it's hyped propaganda and has no place in education or any place outside of Science fiction.

It's garbage.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Are you claiming that a public release documentry should be held to the same standards as academic textbooks? Not that I neccessarily disagree, but I've never heard that argument put forward before. 



> If a judge is saying that showing a film requires that the major points of the film be pointed out as wrong, that should be a red flag alert.



I would agree that it should be considered a red flag. Can you identify an instance where any judge has done so in regards to "An Inconvenient Truth?" I presened a link to the actual judgment rulling in the UK case, and that judge certainly is not pointing out any major points in the film as wrong.




> This film is a piece of trash.  The science is wrong on its face and the erroneous nature of the science is amplified by the intentional lies and unfounded implications of the narrator.
> 
> From small things like Polar Bears not being able to swim 60 miles to the imminent drowning of the United States, it's hyped propaganda and has no place in education or any place outside of Science fiction.
> 
> It's garbage.



Your assessments and impressions are subjectively personal and are not in accord with either the mainstream scientific perspective nor the findings of the Judge in the UK case.

The judge's findings in regards to the UK case - Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

An Inconvenient Truth: The Scientific Argument - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf

An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists - http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/88/an_inconvenient_truth_2007.pdf

Science and Hollywood: a discussion of the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth - GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1 - SpringerLink


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

17.  iii) *There are errors and omissions in the fi*lm, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

19.  Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, *some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis*. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that: 


i) *some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant *[s406].

21.  However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate *when there are or may be material errors of fact*, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.

25.  "Errors"  This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that *sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus*.

Hey that looks like a claim of error!


----------



## Trakar (Jun 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> 17.  iii) *There are errors and omissions in the fi*lm, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.



The "errors and omissions" referred to here are further clarified and qualified in #21 and #23 (which you seem to ignore) are primarily indicative of where the film fails to properly qualify terms of timeframe, or seems to imply exclusivity of impact rather than properly labelling AGW as but one of the primary factors involved. As the judge himself is carefl to point out in #20, #21, #22, #23.   



> 19.  *Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:
> 
> i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].*


*

You do realize that those wanting to show AIT are the "Defendant" here, don't you? 

The main issue is in order to be in good accord with a proper science education presentation is that it needs to have some terms and issues properly qualified by those most familiar with the real science involved which brings us to #20 that you really didn't seem to like at all

20. Mr Chamberlain also rightly points out, at paragraph 7(a) of his skeleton that: 

"The Film is intended to be used by qualified teachers, not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to, other teaching methods and materials. The original Guidance, prepared by a panel of experienced educationalists, identified those parts of the Film's scientific presentation where further context or qualification was required and provided it, with suitable references and links to other reputable sources of information. It encouraged teachers to use the Film as a vehicle for the development of analytic and critical skills. It did not attempt to hide the fact that some scientists do not agree with the mainstream view of climate change and even made reference to The Great Global Warming Swindle (together with a website containing a critique of it)."




			21.  However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.
		
Click to expand...


This simply states that if there are areas of controversy, regardless of whether or not there exists and legitimate substance to the controversy, that teachers should be put in a position to understand the nature of difference of opinion. This is simply saying that many teachers require guidance on understanding issues that are generally outside their academic and professional realm of focus and need some guidelines that the film and its associated initial materials and handouts did not deliver.

22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
Mr Downes does not agree with this, but to some extent this is because the views of the Claimant's expert, Professor Carter, do not accord with those of Dr Stott, and indeed are said by Dr Stott in certain respects not to accord with the IPCC report. But Mr Downes sensibly limited his submissions to concentrate on those areas where, as he submitted, even on Dr Stott's case there are errors or deviations from the mainstream by Mr Gore. Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. 

23. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters  9 in all  upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott. 

(referring to "error" #1 - Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.)



			25.  This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.
		
Click to expand...


The film states "near future" from a climate science perspective the next 2-300 years is consistent with the usage of the phrase "near future." Cimate is measured in minimal time units of ~30 years and much of climate science revolves around paleoclimate understandings and evidences where the geological time references predominant considerations. In this context a few hundred years is not just the "near future," it is a figurative blink of an eye. That said, the film should have offered a colloquial popular understanding qualification of the referenced time to avoid confusing the contextually naive.

Current estimates by the IPCC place expected sea level rise by 2100 in the 1-2 Meter range. 7 meters might well not occur for another century or so after that. 




			Hey that looks like a claim of error!
		
Click to expand...


no, it is the claim of "error"

go back and see how the judge defines "error" in #23.
(( "...and it was those matters  9 in all  upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.
EA 1996, ss 406 and 407. 

Section 406 prohibited the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school. 

Section 407 required the local education authority, governing body and head teacher to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils...they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views. 

The defendant did not contest the argument that the film presented political views. The dispute concerned the definition of partisan in s406 and the meaning of the duty in s407

The judge determned that what was forbidden by the statute was, as the side heading made clear, political indoctrination. The claimant stated that in order to comply with s407, a school had to give what he called equal air time to opposing views. His lordship disagreed. The word balanced in s 407 meant nothing more than fair and dispassionate.))*


----------



## saveliberty (Jun 7, 2012)

Hmm...seems like I used your own source to disprove your assertion.  I quoted sections, while you interpreted from your own views.  Pretty funny.  How does it feel to have failed from your own source?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.
> ...






What a fucking dummy.

Given the title of the thread, it has *everything*to do with climate change.


Far too complicated to get into here.............you really should be on a beginners forum like People.com s0n!!!


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 7, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> 17.  iii) *There are errors and omissions in the fi*lm, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.
> 
> 19.  Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, *some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis*. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:
> 
> ...









Let's take a look at the nice graph, which plots CO2, in ppm, and temperature, in degrees centigrade.  Notice how the swings in temperature tended to be 10 C, until along came 20,000 years ago, when CO2 again rose, to force temperatures up.  The current upswing is tighter, than the others, but like the others, CO2 wanted to adjust, downward, toward forcing a cool-down.  

But humans were busier, at industry and defoliation, since the end of the 18th Century.  So CO2 shot off the scale, all the way past the usual 280 ppm equilibrium maximum, past the arbitrary safe maximum of 350 ppm, to 400 ppm, today.  Temperatures will follow, with acidification and faster warming, from released methane.  No way can we beat runaway global warming, without re-greening the entire planet, deserts, oceans, and all.  Or we will eat shit and die.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 7, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > 17.  iii) *There are errors and omissions in the fi*lm, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.
> ...




Holy Mother of God..................


Thank goodness these people are the fringe in America..........LOL.......and they revel in it!!!



Social oddbALLs are gay


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Indeed they do.  The willful ignorance of these self described "protectors of science" is appalling.  They wipe their asses with the scientific method at every opportunity.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More bad news for the k00ks of this country tonight up in Wisconsin...........as I had astutely predicted months ago.
> ...







About as much as the AGW fraud does.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > And how long ago were the causes that allowed current release of the Calthrates?
> ...







WRONG!  Here is what he said.  Treading very close to an outright lie here trakar, I expected better of you....


The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton: 




1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe. (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future&#8230;")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

This is a particularly egregious LIE on the part of Gore and co. as a recent study of over 50 polar bear swims fixed the AVERAGE distance at 97 miles.

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")


Page 2: An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News


----------



## Trakar (Jun 8, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Hmm...seems like I used your own source to disprove your assertion.  I quoted sections, while you interpreted from your own views.  Pretty funny.  How does it feel to have failed from your own source?



I simply repeated what the judge himself said and broke some of the issues you seem to be confused about (given your peculiar and nonsensical bolding) and broke it down into simplified explanations (and largely from the first 17 points)  as you seemed to be having trouble understanding what was clear to anyone who wasn't trying to alter and confuse his terms. 

How many times did the Judge state that AIT essenially and basically got the science right?
At least three times in fairly clear language


"...although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion..."
"...It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact..."
"...These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists..."


In regards to "errors" the judge states: "...It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407."

The "errors" he presents indicates the places where he felt the political nature of the film might be encroaching on the legal constraints stipulated in s406 and s407, and therefore required addressment by the promoters to be in full accord with those legal stipulations.

This case wasn't a court investigation of the science in AIT it was a court investigation of the perceived potential of politics in a scientifically strong documentary.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 8, 2012)

But Walleyes will continue to lie concerning the contents of the documentary. For those that have not seen the film, here is where you can see it and judge for yourself as to it's accuracy, and what it really states;

an inconvenient truth


----------



## Saigon (Jun 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.



Skooks - 

You can not read or write. You are illiterate. You educate no one. 

Your only purpose on this forum is to prove that on a daily basis.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.
> ...


You educate no one?

Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

So you gonna answer the question or keep running pussy? How is it man can control climate when they produce less than 0.06% of 0.04% of the atmospheric CO2 which is only 0.0024% of total composition?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Yes, yes, BigFizzle, we all already know that you're completely ignorant of the scientific basis of climate science and totally unwilling to learn anything no matter how many times it is explained. You are a troll and a particularly stupid one at that. Go f... yourself, retard.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Holy Mother of God..................
> 
> Thank goodness these people are the fringe in America..........LOL.......and they revel in it!!!
> 
> Social oddbALLs are gay


Did you think the runaway warming, triggered by methane release means it's time to go really fast and shoot some more meth?    

Noooo . . .  do you ever sleep?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 8, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





You apparently did not read the 9 points that the judge said were wrong.

Here they are again.  Before that, though, you characterize this propaganda piece as something that is not like a text book.  It is, however, presented in classrooms as a vehicle to instruct.  There is no appreciable difference between this and a text book.

Your apparent inability to see a difference says more about the quality of text books than about this movie.

That is a sad state of affairs.

ninepoints / FrontPage

<snip>
Here are Judge Burton's nine critiques of Al Gore, with links to pages in this wiki that discuss each point individually.

Guardian article by David Adam, lists eight of Burton's nine points (thanks to Tom Adams for counting!):

The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring
It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down
Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"
Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established
The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"
Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"
Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

The missing point is this one:

Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.
 <snip>


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 8, 2012)

Saigon said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > I have one interest in my posting and one interest only = educating the curious who wander into this forum.
> ...




yeah.....but nobody cares about Finland s0n!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Actually what nobody cares about are your unbelievably moronic and totally braindead posts, you pathetic retarded troll.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 8, 2012)

^^^
Oh.....the.....irony!


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

Al Gore's strategic problems are caused by his usual refusal to go all the way, to prove the trends.  Instead, he sort of dramatizes trends, balks at re-greening endorsements, and wallows in his own foibles, while neo-con zombies begin their expected march.

What did Al expect?  He didn't support legal pot, the whole time he was in Congress or Veep.  He didn't endorse radical re-greening, to reverse CO2 accumulation.  He gets up before Congress, and starts up, with how he feels an 'emotional' moment.  Then he waffles.

Since Al is a leader, with a 1992 book and his 2006 movie, Al gets to attract neo-cons, and I keep running into these assholes, who call me liberal, jerk off about Gore and liberals, and I ain't a liberal, neo-con bitches!  I am an independent, non-partisan _*pragmatist.*_  Learn the difference, fucktards.  We are all stuck, with Al Gore, who gets money, while the sea level starts to rise, out of control.  Fuck you, if you don't like bigger storms.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2012)

Why hasn't your skull caved in from the air pressure differential I'll never understand.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Al Gore's strategic problems are caused by his usual refusal to go all the way, to prove the trends....


Pretty hard to prove anything when you're a demonstrated serial liar.

Gore's Unending Blizzard Of Lies

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore

GORE LIED


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2012)

he don't care.  It furthers the ecofascist agenda.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

Oddball said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Al Gore's strategic problems are caused by his usual refusal to go all the way, to prove the trends....
> ...



_*Turdball!  You and Shitz are fecophiles, who visit shit-links.  I don't go there.

The reason I don't much care for Gore is he doesn't do good enough work, to completely back you skeptic-shitheads way off the ball.  Got issues?  Have a look.  CO2 and heat are both on the way, up, in the latest hockey stick graph:*_






_*Here comes the heat, up 4 C, in a lifetime:*_

Climate change scientists warn of 4C global temperature rise | Environment | The Guardian

_*2011 was the ninth-warmest year, in the modern record:*_

NASA - NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

-------------------------------

*Want to discuss global warming or acidification, with me?  You guys eat shit.  Don't paste it up, here, if you don't want to discuss issues.*


----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2012)

The hockey puck graph is a fraud, too.

Guess you didn't get the memo.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


Sooooooo 2007 thinking.  Climate gate ended the free ride on the credibility express for the ecofascisti.

Now you gotta start proving your bullshit with repeatable data with the full program available for analysis and documentation, not some circle jerk 'peer review' that is so incestuous even hillbillies say, 'y'all gots ta stop datin yer sisters so much!'


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 9, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The hockey puck graph is a fraud, too.
> 
> Guess you didn't get the memo.



This is Bob. Attention span zero.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The hockey puck graph is a fraud, too.
> 
> Guess you didn't get the memo.



*That hockey stick graph is not a "hockey puck" anything.  I guess when you are a Turdball, you like to hook, without cross-checking references.  You know what CRS is.  How about SFB?  That is "shit-for-brains."  You gottem!

Here's another great graph, from the US Government's National Climatic Data Center.  I don't know why you don't like the US Government, since the NSA monitors all this shit, but hey, here comes the sea level up, up, UP:*


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 9, 2012)

Bob. The data is a proven fraud.

Get over it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 9, 2012)

If CO2 really worked the way the warmers allege they would have no problem showing it in a lab.

Add 50PPM CO2 watch temp rise 3 degrees, right?

Why is there not one single experiment that shows this?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If CO2 really worked the way the warmers allege they would have no problem showing it in a lab.
> 
> Add 50PPM CO2 watch temp rise 3 degrees, right?
> 
> Why is there not one single experiment that shows this?


AGW sleeps wit da fishes.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 really worked the way the warmers allege they would have no problem showing it in a lab.
> ...



_*Temperature is predicted, to rise 4 C, in the next 50 years.  Greenland glaciers can all be gone, into the sea and air, with a rise of only 1.6 C.  Stay inland, shitheads.  Or not?*_


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The hockey puck graph is a fraud, too.
> ...


You're the hockey puck for still believing it after Mann's methodology was THOUROUGHLY discredited.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 9, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



*Who discredited the US Government, Pig Shitz?  Who discredited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association?  Who discredited the National Climatic Data Center?  Who says Michael Mann is the only scientist, with a hockey stick?

YOU, and your Log Cabin Club boiz?  YOU are some very questionable bitches.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 9, 2012)

http://www.climategate.com/

Educate yourself fuckface.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 9, 2012)

Fitz - 

Can you explain why you use a blog as a source?

For someone who complains about junk science and cherrypicked data - that seems surprisingly inconsistent.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> http://www.climategate.com/
> 
> Educate yourself fuckface.



*I took a look at it, and it's crap, Pig Shitz.  Do you and your punk posse actually read any part of that Climategate?  It's kind of like Log Cabin Club coffee-table media, only online.  Do you mainly just 'read' gay porn?

Post a paragraph or something, to go with an issue, fucktard.  I go to government sites, these days.  You queens of the JBS locker-room don't impress me.*

 "Everyone's a hypocrite. After that it is just a question of subject and scale." Boncher's Maxim

*Since you put this down for signature, I guess this applies, to you, first.  And you are some kind of BIG hypocrite, aren't you, Pig Shitz.*


----------



## westwall (Jun 10, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Fitz -
> 
> Can you explain why you use a blog as a source?
> 
> For someone who complains about junk science and cherrypicked data - that seems surprisingly inconsistent.







Because the blogs are proving to be more accurate than the scientists doing the work.  I present this example of the scientists getting it completely ridiculously wrong and the AMS removing the paper from its website as a result.  A COMPLETE failure of the peer review process that you worship.  In the case of AGW it has failed and will continue to do so until there is a complete overhaul and punishment of the academic fraud that is now systemic within the "science" of climatology.


"American Meteorological Society disappears withdraws Gergis et al paper on proxy temperature reconstruction after post peer review finds fatal flaws.....

At Climate Audit, the paper was examined in more detail, and alarm bells went off. Concern centered around the 27 proxy data sets used in the study. Now, after Steve McIntyre found some major faults, it seems this paper has gone missing from the AMS website without explanation. All that remains is the Google cache thumbnail image, not even the cached web page.

Steve McIntyre has shown yet again that the climatologists can't do math and seem to be unable to do any kind of legitimate scientific research.  Over, and over and over again they have been PROVEN wrong.

When will you wake up?



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...ion-after-post-peer-review-finds-fatal-flaws/


----------



## Saigon (Jun 10, 2012)

Westwall - 

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case. 

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence. 

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc -  I'll absolutely look at it. 

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.
> 
> ...






Why wait?

The warming we are now experiencing is occurring at about the same pace today as it has for the last 400 or so years.  This predates the Industrial Revolution which you cite as the cause of the warming.

The warming started before the cause you cite and so the cause you cite, while it might be contributor to the array of causes, is not the prime cause.

The reason climate science is political is that charlatans are trying to produce the effect of picking the pockets of the citizenry.  They are using as the cause the rise of CO2.

Like the warming itself, the pocket picking was also occurring before this cause was invented.  

When you can explain why the warming started in the first place, you will have gone a long way in explaining why it is continuing today.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This link takes you to the graph of proxies of temperature increase.  The research to develop this graph was done by these folks:

Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991):
[abstract] [DOI] Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. 
(blue 1000-1980):
[abstract] [full text] Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. 
(light blue 1000-1965):
[abstract] Crowley, Thomas J. and Thomas S. Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. ; Modified as published in [abstract] [DOI] Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. 
(lightest blue 1402-1960):
[abstract] [DOI] Briffa, K.R., T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. 
(light green 831-1992):
[abstract] [DOI] Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. 
(yellow 200-1980):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Mann, M.E. and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. 
(orange 200-1995):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. 
(red-orange 1500-1980):
[abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. 
(red 1-1979):
[abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. 
(dark red 1600-1990):
[abstract] [DOI] Oerlemans, J.H. (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. 

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v was used. Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in:
[abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. 

This group of folks belongs to a larger group known as scientists.  Presenting data is what scientists do.  Picking pockets is what politicians do.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2012)

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

LOL!!!!!!!!!   Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.

How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?


----------



## Saigon (Jun 10, 2012)

Code - 

My reaction is the same as Old Rocks - it looks to me like the temperatures have fluctuated for several hundred years - before suddenly rocketing upwards from around 1950.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.climategate.com/
> ...


Wow, Intellectually bankrupt AND projecting your homosexual desires.  Won't even look at the EAU's own admissions of lying and preselecting the outcome via fraudulant software coding to get a desired result.

Not so flattered, and not your type bobo.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



_*Queen Pig Shitz, if you won't paste it up here, I won't hit the punk links, but since you are a Log Cabin sock, you have this idea I desire your type of porky junkie or your trick sites.

Since you are Pig Shitz, you think you can refer me to your sty, and I'll bring something back.  I will go to wattsupwiththat.org, since it has other links, which are worthwhile, and a lot of pig shit.  But your link is pure pig shit, and since you won't post or discuss any of it, hey, you are a Log Cabin closet-case, who acts like it's OK to shoot speed and trick, to shove your latest dose, all the way to death.  No more jubilee, then!

Death comes, Queen Pig Shitz, even to queer piggies, so if you have time, post something from your shitty site, discuss part of it, and we'll see if you can get past being a shitty, queer sock.*_


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!   Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.
> 
> How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?





Most of the graph is proxy measurements.  Comparing proxy measurements to instrument measures is moronic, present company excepted, of course.

The end of the graph is not appropriately included in the proxies, but this is from an AGW Proponent site.  I enjoy using your own supporters to undermine your case.

The most recent proxies actually show a decrease recently and the rate increase is just about constant from 1600 forward.  

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Code -
> 
> My reaction is the same as Old Rocks - it looks to me like the temperatures have fluctuated for several hundred years - before suddenly rocketing upwards from around 1950.



The abridged answer given to Rocks, the end of the graph switches from proxies to instruments.  There is no sense in comparing the instrument record to the proxy record.

Check the end of the proxy record.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Why wait?
> 
> The warming we are now experiencing is occurring at about the same pace today as it has for the last 400 or so years.



I see no evidence compellingly supportive of this assertion in your post.  



> This predates the Industrial Revolution which you cite as the cause of the warming.



Forcing and causation aren't synomous terms. Additionally, the emissions are low and slow and dirty enough through-out most of the early industrialization period that we really don't start seeing anthropogenic CO2 becoming the major forcing factor until 1940-1950s.  



> The warming started before the cause you cite and so the cause you cite, while it might be contributor to the array of causes, is not the prime cause.



again, you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "causation" and "forcing." There are multiple forcing factors involved in most climate change episodes, the current episode is no different. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary forcing agent of the modern climate change episode (there are other anthropogenic and natural forcing agents involved as well). 



> The reason climate science is political is that charlatans are trying to produce the effect of picking the pockets of the citizenry.  They are using as the cause the rise of CO2.



This is an uncompellingly evidenced or supported partisan political conspiracy theory, not in accord with any objective and critical examination of the issue. I would not doubt that there are both some wise and some unscrupulous indivduals who are trying to profit from an understanding of what the science portends, but there is no compelling evidence that any of these people (individually or in concert) are shaping or influencing climate science.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Why wait?
> ...






For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.

Why is there a cooling trend from 2001 forward while CO2 continues its increase?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Fitz -
> ...



As the paper you reference is still available on the NOAA website, I'd have to say this is rather a row without much substance or significance. It is impossible to say what the reasons are for why it is not available on the AMS site, but without some compelling evidence one way or the other, the blogs are simply speculating and asserting their partisan political and pseudoscience in the lieu of facts, evidences and critical analyses, not that this is, or should be, any great surprise.

And the full paper and supplements are readily available from the University of Melborne research site where it has been available for the last month and a half or so.

http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-con...script_and_Supplementary_April_2012_final.pdf

Upon superficial examination it is not merely this one paper that is missing, all of Gergis's and Neukom's papers seem to have disappeared from the AMS database. It is certainly possible that someone has pulled many formerly available papers from the AMS website, what is not clear at this time is who pulled them and why they were pulled. speculating in the absence of compelling evidence is not a rigorous methodology in accord with scientific principles.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.
> 
> Why is there a cooling trend from 2001 forward while CO2 continues its increase?



You seem to have several confusions operating in concert here. 

1. Climate operates with a minimal normative period of substantive assessment of 30 years. There definitionally cannot be climate relevent trends of less than 30 years.

2. Annual and seasonal weather is highly variable over the short-term (<30y mean assessments), with annual mean temperature variations of up to (and occassionally in excess of) +/- 0.1º C being quite common due to a confluence of the various interacting forcing factors and the natural system cycles (oceanic and atmospheric oscillation cycles, solar fluctuations, etc.,) operating within the background setting of those forcing factors.

3. As 2001, is the tenth warmest year in the instrumental record that stretches back for more than 160 years. With the exception of 1998 (the third warmest year on the instrumental record) all of the other years in the top ten warmest years on the instrumental record have occurred since 2001, with 2005 and 2010 being the two warmest years in the instrumental record. 

There is no compelling, evidentiary indication of any "cooling trend" since 2001, in either weather, or climate.

*(Weather trend)*





*(Climate trend)*
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.pdf


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.
> 
> ...





s0n.......not sure if you recall, but you were the bozo who started this thread. The whole point is.......the sceptics dont need to present shit. They're winning!!! Its the other side that hasnt sealed the deal.


Because if they did s0n...............Cap and Trade would be law!!!


Instead?????????????????????


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)




----------



## code1211 (Jun 10, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > For the purpose of this post, let's assume that you are absolutely correct and all other forcings are weak compared to the primary one that is CO2.
> ...






Very well stated.

The accurate measurements of global climate started in about 1980 with satellite measurements.

It is now 2012.

That's just a tad over 30 years.  

For the first 20 of those years, the temperature has increased which is meaningless since it is less than 30 years.

For the last 10 of those years, the temperature has stalled or decreased.  Also meaningless due to brevity.

The question, though is based on the prescription to avert the catastrophic warming.

If we reduce CO2 and by way of ending our dependance on Fossil Fuels which will also consign our society to famine and mass deaths, we are told that we can save ourselves.  For ten years, though, we find that our temperature is not increasing and also find that that the brightest mind of the AGW crowd, Dr. James Hansen, apparently has gross misunderstandings on how our climate system works.

Compelling evidence of a cooling trend is not required.  Compelling evidence of a warming trend IS required.  It is the warming that must be stopped, is it not?  If there is no compelling evidence of a cooling trend, this does not automatically provide compelling evidence of warming.  

Salvation, in the form of stalled warming, is at hand with no sacrifice.  We may all rejoice!


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...n-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


I do believe I hit a nerve. 

Let's see.  This is the first time I've ever been called a sock before.  That's new.  He's obviously a poor example of liberal tolerance because he uses queer as a perjorative.  Seems to be trying out kosher or halal insults by using pig references and all the time flipping out because reality done left him behind.

Very entertaining.  Do melt down more for us, will you Bobo.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 10, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





I told ya Fitz..............this place is a hoot for guys like us.

Ever see those psycholigical thrillers Fitz? The ones where the victim has figured out that they cant say certain things or else they'll surely be gutted!!! Here its the reverse..........its like being in the same position as the victim but you can say anything you want and the nut melts down........but here, its like they start slicing themselves up while we laugh our asses off. You know these mental cases are just the most miserable mofu's on the planet.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Check your bias at the door and take a second look.



There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century. 

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Check your bias at the door and take a second look.
> ...





The dramatic rise is the instrument record.

The previous 2000 years on the graph are all proxies.  The last 50 years is instrument.

As I said, there is no relation between the instrument record and the proxy record except that the measuring is on the same planet.

The nature of the measurements is completely and entirely different.

For your convenience:

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.
> 
> ...


They have.  You've blinded yourself.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 11, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Check your bias at the door and take a second look.
> ...


The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer?  it can't.  It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 11, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 11, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Pig Shitz, mankind gets to own up, to the last 200 years, of deforestation and industry, which did a lot of cumulative damage.  If you are too stupid to factor any of that, hey, you are too fucking stupid!

You didn't reference or link to your intriguingly queer percentage.  So why jump a line and pretend to answer your own non-question?  I guess that's how the Shitz family taught you to think, since if you can't dazzle 'em, baffle 'em with hypocritical bullshit, even if you are shitty PIG, named Pig Shitz.

Let's have a look at the graph, below.  Notice the red line, at the far right, of the graph.  You can wingpunk your way over, to the far right, can't you Piggy Poo?  The red line represents CO2 cocentrations, and it jumps up to 375 or so ppm, since that was the global average CO2, at the time the UK people who made this graph entered the data.

Naturally, Fatass loaded this and tried to sell me, on how CO2 is somehow not a forcer, never mind how the graph is calibrated, to show how CO2 levels, at peaks or troughs, after temperature passes it, on every major slope.  CO2 goes up, it gets caught, halts, pulls temps down.  CO2 goes down, it gets caught, levels, then forces temps back up.  SS, DD:*

(wattsupwiththat.org used to carry this, but they dumped it, know why?  It's scientific!)



bobgnote said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 11, 2012)

Go look up, because I'm not going to do it for you booboo, "Atmospheric composition of the earth". Now, once you get the actual numbers of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and then find out the total volume in tons of atmosphere it is, then you get the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay?

THEN, take the most wild production of CO2 given by psychofuckos like you booboo, that man has done so far. Then, using the total amount of atmosphere that exists now, find the percentage of how much CO2 man created in it. It's about 0.06% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. THEN, consindering the fact that CO2 is around 0.04% of total composition of the atmosphere, you discover the number man contributes to total atmospheric volume in CO2 is a change of around 0.0024%.

Now, this information is readily available on Wikipedia (for the lazy) or a junior high level science website. The CO2 production, you can get from any radicalized ecofascist website or somewhere else in this forum. I know it's out there, I think I stole it from one of Chris's blog clips now that I think about it.

So is it that the remaining 99.4% of all CO2 from nature is just not as effective as CO2 produced by man? Or just that the scam doesn't work if you pay attention to it?

As for the rest of your post? Why do I bother reading it? It's the same screechy screed used over and over from you chicken little fucktards, booboo.

Oh, and as for that graph, why isn't the medieval warm period listed as a higher spike than today... since it was much warmer?  Guess it's harder to hide fraud when you don't have computers and refuse to allow people independent verification.


----------



## Saigon (Jun 12, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> .



It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination. 

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood. 

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> ...



really?!?

yet you have no problem when the warmists tell you that it must be CO2 because they can think of no other reason why the earth has warmed. interesting.

you bring up glaciers and polar ice. surely it is the temperature and local conditions that cause ice to melt, evapourate or be blown out to warmer waters. or are you saying that there are special features to CO2 that specifically target ice?

there has been a massive loss of ice since the LIA, most of it by 1900. newspaper records have been calling attention to it for at least 200 years.

do you think Hansen and the boys take melting or reforming ice into consideration when they make their 'adjustments' to long standing thermometer readings? after all it would seem to be reasonable that ice forms when it is cold and melts when it is warm, right? be careful if you decide to answer, because it is a trick question.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.
> 
> ...







Here is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty in action.  I presented you with evidence of the poor degree of scientific research pervasive throughout the climatology field and you ignore it.

You have lost any shred of objectivity and made it plain for all to see.  I bet that when presented with irrefutable evidence that the planet is cooling (the opposite of the predictions of the AGW crowd) you will remain blissfully ignorant and continue with your silly belief in the charlatans.

Sad, very sad.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!   Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.
> 
> How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?







Ahhhh yes the hockey shtick graph.  Proven fake but you religious fanatics will never go against dogma.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








And yet the AGW crowd has been proven wrong over and over and over again.  A more complete lack of success would be hard to find.  Now Hansen is resorting to falsifying the historical temp records to bolster his failed predictions.

Looks like the AGW crowd doesn't understand as much as the sceptics do.  Everytime we check their work it comes up short.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> ...







What effect on polar ice?  It has been within the same zone for years.  Me thinks your meme is a little tired and now useless.


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



no shit sherlock. I had to laugh when the Gergis paper got pulled. the skeptical stat cowboys over at Climate Audit have enough data on the proxies now, and enough experience dealing with the corrupted methodologies, to eviscerate most of these data-weak conclusion-heavy papers that come out of the hockey team and friends. no wonder Mann and his henchmen wanted to hide their work. can you imagine what would happen if MBH98 were to come out today?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> ...


Logic and math are imagination now?

Huh.  Interesting proof of your mental accuity.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 12, 2012)

*One thing we should all be able to agree on, stupid people shouldn't breed.

Population is over 7 billion humans, and many of these are wicked stupid.  Don't do it, DD and D.  Your kid might be a pub, with DKS, CRS, and HUB.  Downies for Romney, stop getting to know each other.  And you Democrats, if you are a little D, please don't make it with a D, 'cause if you do it, with a D, your little idiot will be DDD!  DDD!  DDD!  

FDR was a drunk.  He didn't really have polio.  He let Pearl get bombed to crap, like Obama will let global warming get way over, on the US.  Get real, DDs.  You guys are all like Obamney, with the CRS, DKS, and HUB.  And don't forget, DDD!

D to the three, teeheehee?  No laughing, you bitches need to re-green the Earth.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 12, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *One thing we should all be able to agree on, stupid people shouldn't breed.*
> 
> _*Population is over 7 billion humans, and many of these are wicked stupid. Don't do it, DD and D. Your kid might be a pub, with DKS, CRS, and HUB. Downies for Romney, stop getting to know each other. And you Democrats, if you are a little D, please don't make it with a D, 'cause if you do it, with a D, your little idiot will be DDD! DDD! DDD! *_
> 
> ...


The vet called. Your appointment to be spayed has been moved up to tomorrow morning. So remember not to eat or drink up to 12 hours before you come in.

As for your lobotomy, it seems there's complications, so they want you to come back in on Friday for more testing. The scars are healing nice though.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> ...


If you're claiming that 0.0024% of gravity is man's fault and is making gravity stronger, yes.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 12, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
> ...





We can also say that the Temperature of today is approaching the temperature of 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than the temperature of 8000 years ago.

Since what I have written is something that actually happened and can actually be demonstrated by the growth of today's glaciers from points more receded than today from that point in time, why must we assume that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming.

During this interglacial, we have been warmer than we are now and that was thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The cooling of the Little ice Age ended and reversed hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The mere fact that the climate is changing does nothing to isolate a cause.  You need to isolate a cause before you can say, "I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood."

Correlation is not causation and similar effects to those that you cite absent the cause you cite would seem to prove that you are jumping to an unjustified conclusion.  

The only question following that is why are you doing this and the answer will demonstrate why this is a political topic.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 12, 2012)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





Pat on the back!


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 12, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


No no... they're not hunchbacked... they just got their asses kicked up there.

Explains the walk and why their legs are so long.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 13, 2012)

The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam

Virginia House Delegate Christopher Stolle (R) might be on the right-wing fringe when it comes to climate science, but at least he&#8217;s helping fellow lawmakers temper the tea party&#8217;s reaction to costly government studies on the matter. 

In a legislative dust-up earlier this year, according to reporter Scott Harper, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, Stolle told Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam (D) that the terms &#8220;climate change&#8221; and &#8220;sea-level rise&#8221; are &#8220;liberal code words&#8221; that must be excised from a study request, or risk having that request shelved. 


------------------------

*Look what bitches are doing, in Virginia, with denial.  Virginia has the second-worst prognosis, for damage, from rising sea levels, after NOLA.*

*Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety. Please comply with these very simple rules.

~Oddball*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam
> 
> Virginia House Delegate Christopher Stolle (R) might be on the right-wing fringe when it comes to climate science, but at least he&#8217;s helping fellow lawmakers temper the tea party&#8217;s reaction to costly government studies on the matter.
> 
> ...


>yawn<  Lose any sleep over this non story non issue, booboo?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.
> ...



Putting your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and stamping your feet, isn't "checking their work." The only thing i've seen deniers do (remember scientists are skeptics, they don't just don that cape on the internet like deniers are wont to do) is fling their own feces like a troop of chimps trying to protect their private fruit tree (fruit tree - corporate political campaign donors, same as).


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







Yes that describes your efforts to a T.  Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".

Have I missed any of your sides tactics?

Below is yet another study showing your statements to be wrong........


"We present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps covering the period AD 1053&#8211;1996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The new reconstruction is based on nine different calibration approaches and errors were estimated conservatively. Summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterised by two warm (AD 1053&#8211;1171 and 1823&#8211;1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172&#8211;1379 and 1573&#8211;1822). Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century. The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were &#8764;1 °C lower than the 20th century mean."





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379112001680


----------



## Trakar (Jun 13, 2012)

westwall said:


> Yes that describes your efforts to a T.  Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".
> 
> Have I missed any of your sides tactics?



It is evidently easier to assert than to evidence, because either there is a super secret evil global conspiracy in place, or every legitimate investigation of the issues you assert has evaluated the available evidences has found the opposite of what you assert.  



> Below is yet another study showing your statements to be wrong........
> 
> 
> "We present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps covering the period AD 10531996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The new reconstruction is based on nine different calibration approaches and errors were estimated conservatively. Summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterised by two warm (AD 10531171 and 18231996) and two cold phases (AD 11721379 and 15731822). Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century. The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were &#8764;1 °C lower than the 20th century mean."
> ...



I'll give the paper a look, but the "highlights" suggest you are ("SURPRISE!") mistaken:



> Highlights
> &#9658; Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps. &#9658; Highest JJA temperatures 10002000 AD occurred at the end of the 20th century. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis suggests higher uncertainties prior to 1400. &#9658; We therefore cant conclude on how unprecedented current temperatures are. &#9658; Sensitivity analysis highlights importance of data included.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 14, 2012)

*Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​*
That's how stupid their argument is!​


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 14, 2012)

loinboy said:


> *Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​*
> That's how stupid their argument is!​




That is exactly what the Nazis said.


----------



## Billo_Really (Jun 14, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> That is exactly what the Nazis said.


The nazis were in to climatology?

I gotta admit, that's a new one!


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that describes your efforts to a T.  Don't forget the denial of FOIA requests, the despotic rule of the editors of the various journals in barring any study that refuted "The Team", and of course the continuing effort to prevent any scientific study that refutes said "Team".
> ...







It's not a conspiracy, they are quite open in their disdain for the law and the scientific method.  I fond it interesting that you, who claim to be a champion of science, turn a blind eye to the illegal and un-ethical behaviour of the scientists involved.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

loinboy said:


> *Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​*
> That's how stupid their argument is!​







Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it.  That global warming is occuring is not in doubt.  It's been warming for at least 14,000 years.  The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.

Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > The Raw Story | Tag Archive | Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam
> ...



big fitz- are you kidding? this should be a huge story! a group of CAGW alarmists were hired to give a 'scientific report' and they declared there would be a one metre sea level rise by 2100. in steps a group of real scientists that present facts and figures rather than climate model fantasies and the politicians listened! the politicians then decided that they didnt want to get tricked again so they made it a law that projections must be based on actual measurements rather than voodoo predictions from mysterious climate models that are always wrong.


----------



## IanC (Jun 14, 2012)

loinboy said:


> *Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​*
> That's how stupid their argument is!​



that is the stupidest argument I have heard today.

do you know anything about climate change that wasnt printed at HuffPo? there is a reason they stopped calling it global warming, you know.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 14, 2012)

loinboy said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly what the Nazis said.
> ...


No.  They were into killing people who disagreed with them.  Or at least silencing, imprisoning and enslaving them.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it.  That global warming is occuring is not in doubt.  It's been warming for at least 14,000 years.  The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.
> 
> Lot's of worthless models that bear no relation to actual observed phenomena, but nothing else.


*Feel free to start typing, as soon as the quote is up, fucktard.  At the usual graph with CO2 plotted as a red line, get over to the right, and have a look, where that red line goes, which is up toward 400 ppm CO2.  Heard of humans, you wingpunk cruiser?*






*Most queer wingpunks know to get over to the right, and fuck off.  What's your sorry excuse, Wallybitch?*


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free to present any actual empirical evidence for mans contribution to it.  That global warming is occuring is not in doubt.  It's been warming for at least 14,000 years.  The argument is whether man has any culpability in the current warming and so far there is ZERO empirical data to support that hypothesis.
> ...







Big deal junior.  More CO2 means better growing seasons for plants.  More plants means more food for critters.  CO2 has nothing to do with climate.  That's what the Vostok cores show.  But you have to have an intellect greater than a gnat to understand that.

Clearly you don't.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I love it when they forget to check for negative feedback loops.

OMG!  THE OCEANS ARE ASSIDIFYING!!!
"So.... we're fixing carbon out of the atmosphere regulating it to lesser levels?"
BUT THEY'RE RELEASING MORE CARBON!
"So it's not really assidifying is it?  It's maintaining a balanced state?"
BUT THE WORLD'S GROWING HOTTER?
"Increasing the growing season and making winters less devestating is bad how?"
AND STORMS ARE GROWING MORE NUMEROUS AND FIERCE!
"Yet we have't seen that, And increased storm activity helps clean the atmosphere of other pollutants as well, doesn't it?  Isn't it true that Lightning makes Ozone?  Again, this is bad how?"
BUT BUT BUT BUT!!!! IT'S MAN'S FAULT!!!!
"Now you're being silly.  There's no real evidence that man offers a significant force in which climate changes."
BUT WE MAKE BILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2!!
"And the atmosphere is measured in the quadrillions of tons, and even all CO2 equals several trillion tons at 0.04% of atmosopheric composition.  What's a few billion tons more?"
BUT IT HAS TO!!!!
"Why?"
BECAUSE WE WANT GLOBAL ECOFASCISM!!!
"Most of the world doesn't."
WE KNOW!  THAT'S WHY WE MUST FALSIFY DATA!
"How's that?"
BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WON'T SUBMIT TO OUR TYRANNY!
"Life's a bitch that way, ain't it."
IT'S NOT FAIR!
"No it's not.  Now go away and cry someplace soundproof and air tight with a lock outside.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

*Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.

Damn, you sure are a clever shithead, with all kinds of oink and doink, going on.

Wallybitch, all the CO2 going around is too much for the plants we have.  Temperature is going up, with the methane and the rest.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.
> 
> Damn, you sure are a clever shithead, with all kinds of oink and doink, going on.
> 
> Wallybitch, all the CO2 going around is too much for the plants we have.  Temperature is going up, with the methane and the rest.*


awwww... booboo is feeling left out.  You know, when you enter junior high this september, assuming you're not shoved into the sped classes, you'll learn that cussing all the time is a great way to make your pointless.  You're rapidly descending to a place even beneath Trolling Blunder for stupidity.

BUt for entertainment value, please... explain (between meltdowns) how my simple logical progression is flawed?

How is it that ass-idification of the oceans does not counteract the increase in atmospheric CO2 through carbon fixing?  If it isn't... why not?  And if it is how can the ppm be rising to beneficial levels?  We'll just stick with this for now as to not fuck up your chi so badly you can't do anything but scream "Pig Shitz"   I mean I've heard of BOOOOOSH derangement Syndrome but never Big Fitz Derangement Syndrome.  Maybe I should be honored you totally blow your fucking diode over anything I say that makes a righteous mockery of your fantasy religion.

May the frauds be with you.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

westwall said:


> Big deal junior.  More CO2 means better growing seasons for plants.  More plants means more food for critters.  CO2 has nothing to do with climate.  That's what the Vostok cores show.  But you have to have an intellect greater than a gnat to understand that.
> 
> Clearly you don't.



*Here's a plot of CO2 and temperature, as suggested by the Vostok cores, courtesy of Wienerbitch.  What do YOU think this graph shows?  Get'r'done, Wally, since you are bitch number 2.  Wienerbitch and Fatass actually showed up, with media.  You didn't.*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 14, 2012)

loinboy said:


> *Anyone who disagrees with the mountain of evidence on global warming, is the kind of person who would argue gravity plays no role in plane crashes.​*
> That's how stupid their argument is!​





Rather than presenting insults, why not present proof that your theory is right?

So far, nobody has.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.
> 
> Damn, you sure are a clever shithead, with all kinds of oink and doink, going on.
> 
> Wallybitch, all the CO2 going around is too much for the plants we have.  Temperature is going up, with the methane and the rest.*



Bobwisheshehadagnote thinks I am a sock.

Chuckle.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

*PussyShithead, what I think you are is a closet-homosexual, using an environment forum thread, as a runway, for your downlow homosexual intrigues.  Since you are following Pig Shitz closely, and you never offer anything of value, you are a sock or like a sock, only queer.  Which is to say, you SUCK.*



Big Fitz said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _Pig Shitz, you need to get a couple of sock puppets and go entertain the public.
> ...



_*How is it you are an experienced male homosexual, without getting out, to a Log Cabin Club approved forum?  If you keep up the denials and the "ass" issues, you just need to get booted out, on this thread, and hey, come out gay, queen Pig Shitz!

What "beneficial levels" of CO2 release are evident, which are accelerating faster, than Permian-Triassic or PETM extinciton levels?  Are you queer and stupid, or stupid and queer?  Sort your "ass-idification" and queer, piggy shit, right out, right now!  Carbon fixing by natural means will certainly be too inefficient, to avoid Mass Extinction Event 6, already underway.  Carbon fixing will involve algae blooms, which die off and emit more CH4 and CO2, while decomposing.  Do notice data, suggesting equilibria, Pig Shitz.

You are like Marie, Queen of France, who never said "Let them eat cake."  You are a closet queen, which is not ruler, by birth.  You are like a cartoon ostrich.  Real birds never really stick their heads, into the ground, but you do that.  You are like a pig, only not as smart.  Pig-shit-for-brains is really more accurate, in your case, but be Pig Shitz.

What you are really like is all the dead queers, who shot speed and tricked their bad doses of HIV, all the way, through full-blown AIDS, to death.  That's your style.*_


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *PussyShithead, what I think you are is a closet-homosexual, using an environment forum thread, as a runway, for your downlow homosexual intrigues.  Since you are following Pig Shitz closely, and you never offer anything of value, you are a sock or like a sock, only queer.  Which is to say, you SUCK.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Can you possibly be any more incoherent?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > *PussyShithead, what I think you are is a closet-homosexual, using an environment forum thread, as a runway, for your downlow homosexual intrigues.  Since you are following Pig Shitz closely, and you never offer anything of value, you are a sock or like a sock, only queer.  Which is to say, you SUCK.*
> ...


Not without taking Truthiepoo's and Rdean's online course for blithering idiocy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *PussyShithead, what I think you are is a closet-homosexual, using an environment forum thread, as a runway, for your downlow homosexual intrigues.  Since you are following Pig Shitz closely, and you never offer anything of value, you are a sock or like a sock, only queer.  Which is to say, you SUCK.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That right s0n.......we're all sure that all across America tonight, the discussion at the dinner table wlll center on algae blooms and extinction events Who cant seee that?


s0n.........nutballs like you have been screaming this alarmist shit for two decades now. Its met by the public with a collective yawn.( as Ive astutely pointed out with links here numerous times).

But knock yourself out with the science angle s0n..................


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

*S0 suckassbil the tweaker c0mes over and p0sts repeatedly, at envir0nment threads, just to make s0me rant ab0ut h0w 0ther people d0n't give a shit about algae bl00ms and extincti0n events.

You sure are r0ckin,' you tweaking fucktard.  At least y0u kn0w h0w t0 l0ad c0l0rs and smilies, while Wienerbitch is still trying t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 l0ad links and graphs, but he's 1 for 2 at graphs, and 0 for 1, at ph0t0-m0ntages.  Eat shit and die, punks.  You are less than zero, at anything you try, except for being sub-humans, ready for the sea to get up.

That piece of shit Wallyfucktard isn't even good at smilies or tweaking.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *S0 suckassbil the tweaker c0mes over and p0sts repeatedly, at envir0nment threads, just to make s0me rant ab0ut h0w 0ther people d0n't give a shit about algae bl00ms and extincti0n events.
> 
> You sure are r0ckin,' you tweaking fucktard.  At least y0u kn0w h0w t0 l0ad c0l0rs and smilies, while Wienerbitch is still trying t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 l0ad links and graphs, but he's 1 for 2 at graphs, and 0 for 1, at ph0t0-m0ntages.  Eat shit and die, punks.  You are less than zero, at anything you try, except for being sub-humans, ready for the sea to get up.
> 
> That piece of shit Wallyfucktard isn't even good at smilies or tweaking.*


Congrats.  You're no longer worth entertaining with my attention anymore, booboo.  I cast thee on the ignore pile.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many trillions do you want us to waste on CO2 reduction?
> ...



Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences. 
So why will they all be negative?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it's a good thing popularity does't affect the laws of physics.  It's still true that Nuclear Power put to it's full potential could make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles.  As for lighting, they're darn near right.  It can only get better if we get the scaredy cats out of the way.  If we get rid of subsidies and stick to only what the market says is most profitable, and make RATIONAL protections from poisons put in our environment from them (CO2 is not one of them), and not try to be hypochondriac clean this issue sorts itself out.
> ...



*Governments should work to provide energy from sources people largely respect and prefer *

That's what California has been doing. Doesn't work so well when it gets hot.


----------



## signelect (Jun 16, 2012)

It is not political it is about money, woops I forgot polticis is about money.  Sorry, carry on


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 16, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Respect and prefer?

yeah, sounds nice till you realize that respect doesn't feed the bulldog.  It doesn't matter how well respected some form of energy is, if it's inefficient, overpriced, and unsustainable, it's going to lose.

This is the same form of thinking that gives us 'critically acclaimed' TV shows that are collossal commercial failures.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> ...



_*I'll be darned, it's a hockey stick.  Next thing you know, re-pubescent wingpunks will have use for their puckey, to have some real fun, with each other; note how Wienerbitch is trying to bullshit Ian about energy transfer, over at the other thread.

I wonder when Pig Shitz or T-tard will try put up something, worth cross-checking?  Meanwhile, pub fucktards have been busy, politicking:*_

Virginia Republicans Declare War On &#8216;Liberal&#8217; Words | Addicting Info

Republicans have declared war on everything from women to health care to unions to voting. But a war on the dictionary? That war seems to have started in Virginia.

Republican state Representative Chris Stolle has a problem with words. To be specific, he has a problem with science words. Stolle is the sponsor of a $50,000 state study that is supposed to figure out how climate change is affecting the Virginia coastline. There&#8217;s only one problem. Republicans like Stolle refuse to allow the study to move forward unless some words they object to are omitted or changed.

Stolle and his Republican colleagues object to terms like &#8220;global warming,&#8221; &#8220;climate change,&#8221; and &#8220;sea level rise,&#8221; because he says they are terms that liberals use. Forget the fact that the scientific community uses these terms all the time, because liberals use them, they must be bad. So in place of these harmless terms, Stolle has replaced them with terms like &#8220;recurrent flooding&#8221; and &#8220;coastal resiliency.&#8221;

Stolle says these scientific terms are &#8220;liberal code words&#8221; that inflame conservatives so his solution is to use words conservatives don&#8217;t associate with liberals, hence the new language. The legislation then sailed through the general assembly and was signed into law.

------------------

Virginia Republican forces scientists to stop using &#8216;climate change&#8217; terminology | The Raw Story

In a legislative dust-up earlier this year, according to reporter Scott Harper, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, Stolle told Virginia State Senator Ralph Northam (D) that the terms &#8220;climate change&#8221; and &#8220;sea-level rise&#8221; are &#8220;liberal code words&#8221; that must be excised from a study request, or risk having that request shelved.

Shockingly enough: Even though Republicans control the state&#8217;s general assembly and hold the tie-breaking vote in the Virginia Senate, they voted to approve $138,000 to fund the study after Northam allowed the term &#8220;sea-level rise&#8221; to be swapped out for &#8220;recurrent flooding.&#8221;

While prior administrations in Virginia, namely that of Gov. Tim Kaine (D), were quite proactive about studying climate change, Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) has said in public that he does not believe human activity is influencing the earth&#8217;s climate. His administration also shuttered Gov. Kaine&#8217;s climate change commission, which had produced numerous reports on the threats posed to the state by sea-level rise and warmer temperatures.

Ever since then, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has been pushed by the legislature to stop using the scientific terms &#8220;climate change&#8221; or &#8220;sea-level rise,&#8221; swapping them for &#8220;coastal resilience,&#8221; Laura McKay, director of coastal zone management programs, told the Pilot.

McDonnell&#8217;s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, also embarked on a witch hunt for research errors at the University of Virginia by attempting to force University president Teresa A. Sullivan to turn over scientists&#8217; records and internal communications. The state&#8217;s Supreme Court ultimately sided with Sullivan earlier this year, but she&#8217;s since announced plans to resign due to an unspecified &#8220;philosophical difference of opinion.&#8221;

------------------

*Obama seems to love the pubs; he copied the Meat Romney healthcare model, eschewed energy policy, killed more people with drones and busted more pot clubs in four years, than GW Bush did, in eight years, and it is obvious, Obama likes to bask, in his cult of personality, without leading his DDs to good media.

The result of this is a red-state tide washes over the land, with red-state retards getting over, ranting, and preventing any good policy, from evolving or from passing, as legislation.  Thanks DDs, of both tard-parties, for another win, for suckassbil.

Looks like Wally went to the beach, today, but T-tard and Pig Shitz are here, again.  So the stupidity quotient is intact.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause.  Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.
> ...


*
So it is essential that we act -*

What if global warming is beneficial?
Is it still essential to act?


----------



## theHawk (Jun 16, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



The science shows us that the planet has been changing since its creation.

The warmer movement wants us all to believe that mankind is soley responsible for the Earth warming up since the 19th century.  Yet it is scientific fact that its already been warming since the end of the last ice age.  They want you to feel guilty that glaciers are receding, even though they've been doing that for ten thousand years.  They want you to believe that the world will come to an end if tempatures go up, yet there have been times in Earth's history where it already was warmer and there were no polar ice caps.

All the political solutions like "carbon credits" are designed to tax the shit out of the US.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



How many thermometers did they use to calculate global temperature?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 16, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...



_*The planet has been changing, for 4.5 billion years, would you think?  If nuclear power OR petroleum idiots keep having their way, the human habitat could blink out, after only a few thousand years, of human significance.

The skeptic idiots have warmer assholes, from lying.  This is the "liar, liar, pants-on-fire" syndrome.  It appears Mr.Hawk has wandered over to this thread, without reading any of the posts, on the other 200+ pages, ballooned up, from wingpunk fucktards doing a lot of quote in quote in quote, lol, smilies, rant about liberals, from head up butt position.  At least 200 of these thread pages are taken up, with hassling this.

Let's see if Mr.Hawk can read a simple graph, used by both sides of the warming controversy.  I picked this 400,000 year plot of CO2 and temperatures up, from wattsupwiththat.org, a skeptic site.  It's all over the environment threads, since a skeptic named Fatass loaded it, without a link, but I went out and dug it up:*_






*See the convenient red line, for CO2 concentrations, which always bottoms at 180 ppm, and then forces temperatures up, like a rocket, then tops out, at 280 ppm, and a gradual cooling develops, over 80K-100K years?

At the FAR RIGHT of the graph, the red line goes way UP, toward 400 ppm, where CO2 is, today.  Since Mr.Hawk should have eyes, he should be able to shake his red-state ignorance, and notice that happened in the same, geologic instant, as the human emissions and defoliation, done since the industrial revolution started.

That wasn't just wingpunk farts or Al Gore shits or cow burps, dewd.  That was humans cooking the planet, by BOTH emitting CO2 and cutting CO2 conversion media, for year after year after year, but that line goes way UP, since humans were working fast.

Is there some problem, with your Hawk-eyes, or is it your brain?  No?  Warming will follow emissions of GHGs, which is at a rate 10x the PETM event, and look at the environment threads or search, since you are totally DDD about science, when you wander to the end of a thread like this, without reading half of it.

Warming will skyrocket temperatures.  First the oceans acidify, then life on land gets tough, then the oceans get anoxic, and life on land is hell.  Humans aren't going to keep too much of 7 billion souls, on board.

Don't like science?  Watch baseball.  See Cain pitching to 27?  See 10-0?  See how the Giants won the Series in 2010, warmest year, in the instrument record?  See 10 warmest years in the instrument record happened, since 1998?  See high, hard gas?  If you are a gamer-babe, see that rise-ball?  Well, now.  If you are worth a shit at baseball, you should be able to see, when that G-gas comes to town, it's BYE-BYE, BABY, vis-a-vis Mass Extinction Event 6.

So don't get excited, and fly into a windmill.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *S0 suckassbil the tweaker c0mes over and p0sts repeatedly, at envir0nment threads, just to make s0me rant ab0ut h0w 0ther people d0n't give a shit about algae bl00ms and extincti0n events.
> 
> You sure are r0ckin,' you tweaking fucktard.  At least y0u kn0w h0w t0 l0ad c0l0rs and smilies, while Wienerbitch is still trying t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 l0ad links and graphs, but he's 1 for 2 at graphs, and 0 for 1, at ph0t0-m0ntages.  Eat shit and die, punks.  You are less than zero, at anything you try, except for being sub-humans, ready for the sea to get up.
> 
> That piece of shit Wallyfucktard isn't even good at smilies or tweaking.*







*Subhumans FTMFW s0n!!!*


You and all the k00ks know you're losing........thats why you and all the other k00ks on here go mental a dozen times/day. In fact, everything is good my way..........4 1/2 more months of this lefty bullshit and it gets mothballed for two generations and fracking is going to dominate the energy landscape for the next decade. Solar companies are taking a crap and closing every day all over America. Meanwhile........Cap and Trade is not even part of the English language anymore in 2012.


All the science.................and nothing to show for it asshole!!!










And what are the radical environmentalists doing these days besides losing? Out in their backyards building their emergency arks for the coming floods..................









And cheesedicks like Rolling Thunder and Bobg sit home and salivate about the prospect of every American going to work on a two wheel scooter......................and belive the whole country is about to embrace it!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 16, 2012)

Oh.....by the way.........if anyone is interested...............here is a recent shot of Bobg about to take his emergency ark for the maiden voyage.............shit even has a motor









Get back to us on how it went s0n!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 16, 2012)

As I posted up about a year ago.........Rolling Thunders maiden voyage of said emergency ark didnt go real well................


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



OMG! The planet has never had more than 375 PPM of CO2 before. We're doomed!


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > *S0 suckassbil the tweaker c0mes over and p0sts repeatedly, at envir0nment threads, just to make s0me rant ab0ut h0w 0ther people d0n't give a shit about algae bl00ms and extincti0n events.
> ...







The fact he uses the term subhumans reveals his true NAZI self.  He's a troll and no longer worth responding to.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 16, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.
> 
> "Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"
> 
> ...



Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.
> ...



What "damages" are caused by mild winters?  The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.  None of you warmist cult members have every demonstrated any "damages" from your hocus-pocus theory that the sky is falling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.
> ...



*Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. *

How much damage has Solyndra diminished?

*The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. *

What damages?

*A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. *

How is charging me more for carbon revenue neutral?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.
> ...



Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.



bripat9643 said:


> The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.



The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.
> ...



Your herring are remarkably red tonight.

Even if managed properly and profittably, 100 "Solyndra"s would have, on their own, been barely noticeable in their impact upon this issue. But if you want to seriously engage and have a considered voice in the debate of public policy with regards to the issue, such as helping to design and install safegaurds that investigate and monitor companies receiving government funding to insure that they are responsibly and reasonably managed and are actually capable of meeting and fulfilling the contracts and grant conditions under which they are receiving funding you are going to have to acknowledge the science and operate in good faith within the constraints and demands of the science. I'm sure there is a politically conservative perspective that fully accepts and acknowledges the mainstream science understandings that form the foundations of AGW theories. Not being a conservative myself, I'd probably find them "inadequate and ludicrous," but, it is one thing  to have ideological differences of opinion, it is a completely different thing to have ideologically driven perspectives of the underlying principles of reality.   



> *The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. *
> 
> What damages?



There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed. Of course, this would probably yeild a highly conservative estimation.

It is almost impossible to lay any particular event solely at the feet of one factor, but when we see increasing trends for climate related factors, it is not unreasonable to tie the average annual/decadal changes to the prevelant climate trends. 



> *A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. *
> 
> How is charging me more for carbon revenue neutral?



By design, as an individual up to a certain, extremely high, levels of personal usage, the effects of carbon taxes are neutralized by either federal tax credits or tax refunds. Lesser refund/credits are available to businesses with the exception of carbon resource recovery industries that will eat the cost and pass it along to those who purchase their recovered product. At the front end, the amounts generally being discussed as hard ball range from 50$/ton of carbon in the early stages to $100/ton when we are in the final stages of transfer away from nearly all large-scale use of carbon sourced power and fuels. But looked at realistically, while that would about double the price of a ton of coal, right now, it would be less than the price of the same coal 2 years ago (and yet the cost of electricity dependent upon coal didn't go down by much over the last 2 years). 

The difference builds infrastructure, funds educational scholarships/internships, technology R&D grants and small business loans, invests in treaury bonds and issues carbon bonds.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 17, 2012)

Just as an aside.............here in New York this am, I get up and am forced to put on a fleece sweatshirt...........and its almost fucking July!!!

I think it is fascinating that the warmer bomb throwers dont think day to day perception matters. But people who will never even dream of thinking about blogging about global warming are waking up today in New York and saying, "Shit......cant go to the beach today because its freezing out!!". Hard core beach goers would be there otherwise for sure. But the next time some idiot brings up global warming, at a minimum, they are scratching their head and probably laughing their balls off. And part of it is, the next heat wave, all the k00ks will come out from the woodwork, but the average Joe realizes that on days like today, they seek to be invisible.


Common sense stuff is to the warmer bomb throwers as kryptonite is to Superman. Most people have good solid common sense. SOme..........not so much.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...






Yes.  And also to sing and dance.

The Arts are a very important part of our civilization.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the recently starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots.  They want to bring about death to billions.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Actually, Numbnuts, it is the intelligent and informed people who recognize the grave dangers to human civilization posed by AGW who want to prevent the death of billions by limiting carbon emissions and it is you deluded denier dupes of the fossil fuel industry who would, through your insane opposition to any effective actions to deal with the climate change crisis, bring about the those billions of deaths as the world food production systems collapse. The accelerating loss of mountain top glaciers alone will cut off the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supplies to billions of people. 

And BTW, BigFizzle, your sorry excuse for a brain obviously has no connection to "_reality_".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



*Even if managed properly and profittably, 100 "Solyndra"s would have, on their own, been barely noticeable in their impact upon this issue. *

Exactly. And the same clowns want to spend trillions.

*There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed. *

And the increase is due to AGW and not increased population? Increased building? Increased building along shorelines?

Must be some great records you have there. I look forward to your link.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.
> ...






"Pennies"?  76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies.  And that according to the IPCC.  

You need to get your facts straight.  Especially when you have these things whizzing by all the time.  Eventually one of them is going to hit the planet.  We are finally in a position to prevent that from occuring but you folks would rather waste money on crap like AGW research than do something that really can save civiliisation and possibly human life itself.





Huge Asteroid to Fly by Earth Thursday: How to Watch Online | Space.com

Asteroid 2012 Da14 - How Close Will It Get? 2012 Da14 Asteroid News


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...







And babaganooshes alter ego pops back in.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Hey!  I like Babaganoosh!  Roasted eggplant patee is pretty darn tasty.

Booboo got tossed on the ignore pile with Trolling Blunder, Ole Crocks and Trakar for failures in sentient thought.

If it weren't for your quote I'd have never known Trolling Blunder still thinks I read his posts.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 17, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





Billions and billions................


Please that this dolt never becomes a parent...........kids walking around like the wicked witch of the west watching the sky all the time for a house to come falling out of it!!


Guys like this are a result of the feminization of America, compliments of the efforts of the feminist bulldogs..........hysterical over everything.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...








Here's the whole report.  Knock yourself out.  Below is an excerpt from the UN's press release. with link for it as well.  I thought you were current on this, what have you been doing instead of keeping up with the plan?



UN report calls for major investments in new technologies in
developing countries to build green economies
Need for immediate gains in energy efficiency, agricultural
production and disaster reduction
Geneva, 5 July 2011 &#8211; Over the next three to four decades, humankind must bring about a fundamental
technological overhaul of production processes worldwide to end poverty and avert the likely
catastrophic impacts of climate change and environmental degradation, the United Nations said in a
report issued today.
Major investments will be needed worldwide in the development and scaling up of clean energy
technologies, sustainable farming and forestry techniques, climate-proofing of infrastructure, and in
technologies reducing non-biodegradable waste production, according to The World Economic and
Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation, published by the UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA).
The report says the technological overhaul will need to be on the scale of the first industrial revolution.
Over the next 40 years, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed for incremental investments in green
technologies. At least one-half, or $1.1 trillion per year, of the required investments will need to be made in
developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application
of green technologies.
Since the first industrial revolution, world income and population have grown exponentially, but so
have energy demand and the production of waste and pollutants (see figures). As a result, the global
environment&#8217;s capacity to cope with human activity has reached its limits, according to the report.
About half of the earth&#8217;s forests are gone, groundwater resources are being depleted and contaminated,
enormous losses in biodiversity have already occurred, and climate change threatens the stability of all
ecosystems.
At the same time, about 40 per cent of humanity, or 2.7 billion people, rely on traditional biomass, such
as wood, dung and charcoal, for their energy needs. And 20 per cent have no access to electricity,
mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
To achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still
living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050, much greater
economic progress is needed, the report says.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wesspr_en.pdf

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.
> 
> According to the proxies, the climate warmed by more in the years between 1600 and the start of the Industrial Revolution than it has since that time.



This is simply incorrect. 

Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.




code1211 said:


> We are about as cool right now as we ever have been as a planet.
> 
> File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art



Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



not according to the content of yoiur posts.



code1211 said:


> The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.



It is neither the only thing currently providing such support nor the only thing capable of providing such support, as demonstrated by the reality that fossil fuels do not make up 100% of our fuels for transportation or electrical production. We can choose alternatives for such applications.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots.  They want to bring about death to billions.



Sophistry at its sloppiest


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



For someone trying to set facts straight, why do you conflate a UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, pipe-dream white-paper proposal with something you claimed was a finding of the IPCC?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

*. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.

Pig Shitz is a leading fecophile, among many, which post at USMB.  No good links yet, from:
1.  Pig Shitz
2.  Wallyfucktard
3.  Suckassbil the tweaker
4.  T-Tard
5.  CodePunk

. . . and one good graph came from Wienerbitch, with one from Fatass, in all pages, of all threads, at USMB.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=3ede3e93-813f-4449-97e6-0d6eb54fbc9e

Page 20 has the EPA estimate of the benefit of adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 17, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.
> 
> Pig Shitz is a leading fecophile, among many, which post at USMB.  No good links yet, from:
> 1.  Pig Shitz
> ...







LOL....but the fecophiles are winning!!!


And please with the "where are the links?" crap. Well over 6 months ago, I challenged every k00k on here to come up with a single link displaying where the green radicals are winning!!!! Still waiting..............


And lets not forget the recent Pew Poll conducted in February regarding voters highest priorities. Global warming? #22 out of...........22!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 17, 2012)

So they asked this guy to comment about BobG's last post on here..................


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tibLjnn_Nf4]Midget - YouTube[/ame]



Who has the most fun on this forum?



And ummm...............who doesnt??


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.
> ...




To the first point, we disagree on the amount of increase in the periods before and after the cause that you cite as the driving factor in the warming, but we do agree that the warming started before the cause you cite as the driving factor in the warming.

The future, therefore, causes the past.

Regarding Snowball Earth, point taken.

Revise the statement to include only the last 65 million years.  The recent times in our climate's temperature are more cool right now compared to any period in the last 65 million years.

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





If you truly believe this, in view of the methods of farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are delusional.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



We currently use fossil fuels for most transportation work, this does not mean that it is the only method possible to accomplish these tasks. If you believe that it is the only method of accomplishing these tasks and if we stopped using fossil fuels we would not accomplish farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are either delusional, or simply being disingenuous.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Look, T-tard, page 20 has cites on it, not estimates, you lying shitter.  This publication is neither scholarly nor useful, as reference.  It has nothing, about CO2-neutral biomass or re-greening, just shit about the how the bad, old Clean Air Act will mess up the crime-pays economy, which pays wingpunk-pubs and their blow-buddy Democrats, for daisy-chaining and circle-jerking, in their usual way.

Here's the junior wingpunks who wrote all this shit, who aren't anything but pubs, with tiny brains, scamming a pub-infested committee, with Tea Party propaganda, while the jerks circle, and jerk some more:*

Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797
David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov  (202) 224-5642


----------



## code1211 (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





Fossil fuels are used in every step of the process and power the vehicles and machines that do the work.

While it may not be the only method method available, it is the method that has allowed the vast increase in the world's population.  That increase is due in large part to the ability of the race to feed itself.

Note in the link that the world's population increases as the use of the combustion engine spreads worldwide.

Please recall that half of the land vehicles used by the Nazis to invade France were drawn by horses.

File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



"Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 C by 2100"

How many trillions of dollars do you think we should spend to achieve that massive reduction in future temperature?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 17, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > *. . . because that is Pig Shitz, trying to baffle a doc, with bullshit, about a doc.
> ...


Skook, don't even compliment him with the attention.  Little boy booboo is a waste of bandwidth.  Let him wither on the vine.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



It is not a single warming. We can distinguish between CO2 emitted from short-term sinks by warming temperatures from CO2 emitted by burning fossil-fuels due to the ratio of 12C - 13C isotopes in the resulting atmospheric CO2 component. Biological processes tend to concentrate 13C in their tissues. Being an unstable isotope, when this material is sequestered for tens - hundreds of millions of years, it tends to decay. The remaining carbon is deficient in the normal 13C to 12C ratios. Carbon that is only in surface sinks for a few thousands - hundreds of thousands of years (like the CO2 in the oceans, permafrosts, and other soil sinks) doesn't lose anywhere near as much 13C. They are complex calculations but we can determine to a high degree of accuracy, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to natural sinks, and how much came from burning fossil fuels. 



code1211 said:


> The future, therefore, causes the past.



There is no indication that I am aware of, of any short or long-term global climate warming occurring prior to the trends of anthropogenically emitted CO2 induced warming. There is some indication that masking effects of increased vulcanism aerosols which caused NH regional cooling in an especially tectonically active couple of centuries commonly called the little ice-age, ended and temperatures slowly returned to normal ranges,...but I wouldn't qualify that as a "warming" so much as a return to previous equilibrium states. 



code1211 said:


> Revise the statement to include only the last 65 million years.  The recent times in our climate's temperature are more cool right now compared to any period in the last 65 million years.



Revise the statement to indicate the cool period as meaning the last 3-4 million years, and I'd agree that we were cooler than any other period over the last 65 My. Currently, however, we have left those cool times behind. We are already hotter than anytime in the last few million years., and at the pace we are going, will  surpass  PETM records next century.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



Though Toddster's reference is a hyperpartisan sophist rant with zero credibility or validity, I would have to ask you to be careful with the broad-brush strokes that you are using. I am Republican. I am not conservative nor libertarian. If you want to call out idiots, please proceed, but not all "pubs" are idiots or fascists.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



none of which supports your implied correlation that if we stop using fossil fuels we have no other option but to cease the activities that we currently use fossil fuels to support. We didn't live huddled in the dark every night because we stopped using whale oil to fuel our lanterns.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 17, 2012)

Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Though Toddster's reference is a hyperpartisan sophist rant with zero credibility or validity*

The numbers are from the EPA.
I understand why you think they have zero credibility.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



*Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate *

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







The UN and specifically the IPCC are driving the bus as regards environmental legislation.  Are you implying that the UN has NO interest or power in implementing this pipe dream?

This is a basic proposal.  They have laid out what they wish to accomplish.  Now they have to implement it.  For you to assert that this is nothing is quite simply ludicrous and indicative of your profound intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I want to echo that its not science.  There should be a provable hypothesis that leads to some type of predictable model.  The results should mirror the observable climate.  The Earth has generated periods of climate change before man was even here.  No smoking gun with man as the trigger.
> 
> We have debunked about every thought brought here by the Faithers.



*T-tard didn't reference the page, and his text is complete shit, from somewhere, maybe on some page, at his shitty paper.  Where is your quote from T-tard?  What page?  Does it reference EPA or U-B-Gay?  Asshole.

Saveshit, you didn't debunk anything.  The hottest year on instrument record was 2010, and all ten hottest years were 1998 or since.  Acceleration of warming means successive years are likely to succeed 2010, as hottest on record.  This is predictable:*

The Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that medium. The trapping of the long wavelength radiation leads to more heating and a higher resultant temperature. Besides the heating of an automobile by sunlight through the windshield and the namesake example of heating the greenhouse by sunlight passing through sealed, transparent windows, the greenhouse effect has been widely used to describe the trapping of excess heat by the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space.

A major part of the efficiency of the heating of an actual greenhouse is the trapping of the air so that the energy is not lost by convection. Keeping the hot air from escaping out the top is part of the practical "greenhouse effect", but it is common usage to refer to the infrared trapping as the "greenhouse effect" in atmospheric applications where the air trapping is not applicable.

_*Trakar's latest Hansen-thread links provide access, to a method, for estimating greenhouse effect.  I'm glad to hear you are a pub, Trakar, since it has been many years, since I encountered even one, who I could get along with.

Molecules with more than two atoms have the most pronounced GHG tendencies.

The fact remains, pub excesses with their Democratic daisy-chain compadres have led to media, like T-tard's committee rant, so I have to stay out of either party.  The two majors are actually enjoying their controversies, so nobody smart has a chance, to advance.

You are quite likely to suffer, under that trend, as a registered Republican.  Note what pubs are doing in Virginia state legislature is more typical, of pub behavior.

More on basic warming, from links, at the first link:*_

Blackbody Radiation

HyperPhysics Concepts


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.








No, they would be rejoicing at the newer, CHEAPER, CLEANER energy to be derived from petroleum.  Petroleum allowed the modern way of life that we enjoy today.  I don't know about you, but I like the fact that we can travel in hours what would have taken months for the travellers of old to do.

You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era.  Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...







Describes you and yours to a "T".  Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He'd challenge diamond on it's carbon content.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agencys mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



*The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying.*

The EPA is saying adding CO2 to the Clean Air Act will reduce CO2 and global temps by those amounts. How much are you willing to spend for those reductions?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs has absolutely no connection to the IPCC, in fact the UN as an organization is designed to follow member state direction, not lead or set direction. And "Yes," the UN has no authority or power to implement anything, all they can do is accept the majority decisions of its member states and go along with security council directives.



westwall said:


> This is a basic proposal.  They have laid out what they wish to accomplish.  Now they have to implement it.  For you to assert that this is nothing is quite simply ludicrous and indicative of your profound intellectual dishonesty.



Not at all, it comes from having a good understanding of precisely what the UN is and how it operates. For the most part, the vast majority of all UN departments are little more than "think-tank" like clearinghouses for independent author and agenda topic studies and proposals. Here are a number of other proposistions various groups and individuals have had published by DESA over the last few years:

"Growing importance of men in families" - Growing importance of men in families - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

"Call to integrate social and economic policies" - Call to integrate social and economic policies - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

and if you don't like my assessment of these UN papers, all you have to do is read the disclaimer the UN itself adds to the beginning of such studies and working papers:

"UN/DESA Working Papers are preliminary documents circulated in a limited number of
copies and posted on the DESA website at Your Page Title to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Secretariat. The designations and terminology employed may not conform to United Nations practice and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Organization."

And in the case of your paper itself, the preface states in part: 
"...Green economic thinking can unleash the government policies and business
opportunities that will power sustainable growth, reduce poverty and protect our natural
resources. By providing a wealth of information, insights and practical recommendations,
this Survey can help advance the global debate on the critical role that a transformation
in technology can play in ushering in a greener future. Its publication is especially timely
as the world prepares for next years Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development, and I commend it to policy-makers, non-governmental partners, business
executives and concerned individuals everywhere who can help realize this shared goal."

This isn't a policy document that anyone will try to forcibly implement, its an agenda list of goals and recommendations that the authors are attempting to propose.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

westwall said:


> You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era.  Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!



Ironic given that you are one of the ones denying science and rejecting modern understandings and technologies in order to keep to traditions and conservative behaviors rather than embracing progress.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That isn't at all what the EPA study is about or saying. This EPA study was about adding CO2 to the reporting requirement to "the mobile source" rule which oversees mobile emission sources like trucks, cars, trains, planes, etc.,.

What this rule states is:



> Mobile Sources
> Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (74 FR 56260)
> 
> Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) rule, all vehicle and engine manufacturers1 outside of the light-duty sector2 must report emission rates of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) from the products they supply. EPA is not requiring reporting of mobile source emissions or activity data from fleet operators or state and local governments...


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/infosheets/mobilevehicle_enginemanuf.pdf

It is for rating specifications to go on sales stickers rather like MPG ratings for vehicles currently.

How many trillions do you think it will cost to add these numbers to sales invoices?

is a little ink worth a small reduction in CO2 over the next century?


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You followers of Ned Lud need to get with the modern era.  Amish life is waaaaay to boring for me!
> ...







You consider windmills progress?  You consider rolling brownouts progress?  You consider mandating that third world countries remain third world, progress?  No, I advocate for legit research that will take us off of fossil fuels and pave the way for man to get to the stars.  

You advocate a "sustainable" lifestyle that will see the death of mankind when the next space rock decides it's time for another extinction event.

Progress my ass.  If you guys cared about progress you would have something to show for the 100 billion you've allready spent on your "research".

What a joke.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*What you are supposed to do, ToddQueer, is put the correct page number AND some text, after your link.  What you did was put up a link, to a bullshit paper, with a page number 20, leading to the appendix.  Then you pasted some shit from a queer porn site, without reference, and now you are a punkass queer, ranting about the EPA, without reference, except you are a punkass queer, who doesn't intend to provide a reference because you are a punk.

You are here for some reason, maybe because you like how Pig Shitz and Wally Fucktard blow off GOP regular professor, Trakar.  You neo-cons are long on queer, short on brains, and you are blowing off any proper Republicans, since you are assholes and Pig Shitz, so Trakar has no chance.  I wonder when he will finally give up on the GOP, which has been queer, for years!

Not that I'd have anything to do with Democrats, all at once.*


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

_I don't believe you actually tracked that fraud Turdster's bogus claims down, Trakar.

He doesn't intend to offer anything of value, see also Wally and Suckass and the lot.  You have awesome patience, which you must find tested, any time you actually come into physical contact, with other pubs.

Other pubs are like Turdster, Pig, Wally, Wiener, Code, the lot.  I'd never get in the same room as one._


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 17, 2012)

California Girl said:


> When the left hijacked the environmental movement to obtain political goals. They made it political. Watermelon men, the whole whacked out bunch of 'em.



_*The best comments these days are from professor Trakar.  He explains global warming phenomena, with the best posters on the internet, also including Old Rocks.

Trakar corrected me, for dissing the pub scum-bitches, who don't do science, but they post wingpunk pub-scat, here, all the time, anyway.  Turns out, Trakar is GOP.*_






_*Since you are so pissy about the left, take a look at the RIGHT side, of this swell graph, from skeptic site, wattsupwiththat.org.  What do YOU think caused that red line, to go WAY UP, all of a sudden, in a geologic instant?

Since that line means CO2 didn't go back down, as scheduled, to force a gradual global cool-down, who do you think cut down trees, bushes, grasses, mined fossil fuels, and burned a lot of it?  Do you think humans did the deeds, to make that red line go way UP?

What do you suppose will happen?  Will temperatures try to catch up, so we start having record temperatures, in the instrument age, every year?  Will the acidifying seas get worse, so jellyfish take over, then algae and bacteria, until anoxic events leave H2s respirators, as dominant forms?

Will the land get hot, will the fresh water get scarce, but the storms will get helliish, even for non-partisan independents like me?              

YES.  If you can answer that one, hey.  You got smart.  If NOT, you have nothing left.*_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...



*This EPA study was about adding CO2 to the reporting requirement to "the mobile source" rule which oversees mobile emission sources like trucks, cars, trains, planes, etc.,.*

It's only about reporting, not reducing?

*is a little ink worth a small reduction in CO2 over the next century?*

Wait, it does reduce? With just a little ink?
Please explain further.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 17, 2012)

All you have to know about why AGW is political is to read the paper this week. 

Japan has shut down all but 4 of 24 (or so) nuclear reactors, single-handedly causing the largest massive MAN-MADE spike in CO2 in human history. Germany is threatening to do the same. (and no -- their shitty investments of over $130B in solar ain't gonna prevent a BIGGER CO2 SPIKE)

If AGW warranted a response seriously enough to save mankind and the planet, would we be so afraid of leaving the nuclear plants running? That -- ought to tell ya something about "reducing CO2 emissions" and how important Japan and Germany take it to be..

There ya go OleRocky, bobgnote, all those anti-nuke pukes..* The gun is to the planet's head right now.* CO2 is spiking because the cleanest form of power we have is MORE FRIGHTENING than global warming.. Go pull the trigger for us willya? And get this circus over with.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You poor girl.
Dispute the EPA numbers all you want. It's funny.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


LOL... thanks for sharing that post.  I see a lot of "BWAAA!  You pricks won't obey me!!!" in it.

Yep.  Still made the right choice now stop quoting booboo.    It don't need to be fed anymore.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 18, 2012)

*Pig Shitz and Turdsterqueer could use the Log Cabin Club message board to get together, but here they are.  You guys don't paste any referenced links or text, and you write shit.

Watching Turdsterqueer take Trakar off got disgusting.  Trakar is GOP, Shitz and Turdster are Log Cabin bitches, who may have once been Y.R.s, but they got lost, since there's no more Y.R.s.  How does Trakar deal with you idiots?  He doesn't go to Republican events, or he'd have to meet assholes like you two.

I have been to pub events.  Assholes are everywhere.  They talk, like Turdster and Shitz write!  That won't do.

Is there any reason you post, at an environment thread?  Don't you punks like each other?  Your asses are on fire, at the same time.  I guess typing crap is how you punks actualize your punk dreams.*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 18, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






Link?

This link disagrees with your assertion:
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

This one, too:
File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Both show that we are significantly cooler today and not just be a degree or two.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 18, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





I didn't see the part about the temperature not increasing until the Industrial Revolution started.  

If the warming started before the Industrial Revolution, it started before the Industrial revolution.  If this is true and it certainly is, then the cause cannot be the cause that you rely on.

Why do you resist this obvious conclusion?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 18, 2012)

Trakar said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





That's true.  The use of Whale oil was replaced by the use of fossil fuels, the electronic revolution, gas driven generators, coal fired turbines and the implementation of plastics as a by product of the use of Fossil Fuels.

The explosion in population did not occur until more food was available and it became available as the result of the use of the fossil fuel driven technologies of the 20th Century.

Sometime in the future, but certainly not today, there might be technologies that make Fossil Fuels obsolete.  You will know when that occurs because people will speak of Fossil Fuels then as we speak of Whale Oil today.

Again, why do you resist such an obvious conlusion?


----------



## code1211 (Jun 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.





Wait til the moaning that follows the leaching of the Mercury from the new lights into our ground water and food.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 19, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...






What cost do you feel is a reasonable cost?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.
> ...



LOL.  Code, old boy, you know damned well that the coal fired plants put far more mercury into our environment than the flourescents have or ever will. And the LEDs don't have mercury in them. More misdirection on your part to cover for the damage that the use of fossil fuels is doing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Lets see. A reasonable cost might be several orders of magnitude less than what the continued use of fossil fuels is going to cost in the not too distant future. According to Swiss Re and Munich Re we are already seeing major costs associated with global warming.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 19, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...


Could you be just a teeeeeeeny bit more vague?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 19, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...








_*CodePunk, you are an idiot, without doubt.  Take a look at the 56 m.y.a. peak, which is the PETM, to which Trakar refers.

What Trakar has said in the past (from my memory) is we are at 10x the rate of CO2 emissions, relative to the PETM.  Trakar again refers to the PETM, as the event we will surpass, which I can assure you relates to warming, acidification, SLR, and accelerated response, of those factors.  Trakar clearly mentions carbon, asshole.

Your graphs don't plot carbon, next to the temperature, so what are you trying to prove, you idiot?  You have nothing, which relates to what Trakar said, then or now.*_






_*Meanwhile, the Koch Bros. apparently got tired of their fellow pubs being not as smart, as Trakar is.  So they funded a study:*_

Muller: Warming Real, We will be in agreement with Human Cause « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

_*It seems the wingpunks likely got past the GOP's Trakar, to bug Dave and Charley, with their idiocy, so in between cleaning up wingpunk-piddle with Brawny towels, they advocated relief from  drug laws and partly funded the above study.  I don't know how Trakar and the Kochs can stand the neo-con wingpunks, going around, but you guys are entitled, to choose your company.*_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 19, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





but..................


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 19, 2012)

Hey wire........this will be the next thing blamed on global warming...........


5 Extremely Rare Orange Lobsters Discovered At Mansfield Restaurant « CBS Boston


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 19, 2012)

*Suckassbil, your boy/girlfriend Wienerbitch is having trouble convincing anybody he's a bitchin' scientist, so he isn't posting as much.  Post some more smilies and tweak-pictures; see if bitch is attracted to you.  If you weren't a fucktard, you might have something a zombie hermaphrodite would want, but you are so stupid, you come in dead last, right behind Oddball, in thread I.Q.

Wienerbitch isn't any smarter, than Oddball, but bitch isn't as connected, to the USMB.

You aren't anything but a tweaking, queer-cheerleader, but if you think of a way for your hermaphrodite wingpunk to bullshit us, into thinking us he's some kind of talent in the lab, Wienerbitch will come back over here, more.  I guess when you find out how the Koch Brothers funded a study, which found out global warming science is valid, you will spam us up some smilies, go out, and suck a cock or two.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 19, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Suckassbil, your boy/girlfriend Wienerbitch is having trouble convincing anybody he's a bitchin' scientist, so he isn't posting as much.  Post some more smilies and tweak-pictures; see if bitch is attracted to you.  If you weren't a fucktard, you might have something a zombie hermaphrodite would want, but you are so stupid, you come in dead last, right behind Oddball, in thread I.Q.
> 
> Wienerbitch isn't any smarter, than Oddball, but bitch isn't as connected, to the USMB.
> 
> You aren't anything but a tweaking, queer-cheerleader, but if you think of a way for your hermaphrodite wingpunk to bullshit us, into thinking us he's some kind of talent in the lab, Wienerbitch will come back over here, more.  I guess when you find out how the Koch Brothers funded a study, which found out global warming science is valid, you will spam us up some smilies, go out, and suck a cock or two.*


----------



## code1211 (Jun 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Of course LED's, to my knowledge, don't have Mercury.  Talk about misdirection

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing &#8211; an average of 4 milligrams (mg). By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury &#8211; an amount equal to the mercury in 125 CFLs. Mercury is an essential part of CFLs; it allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact (not broken) or in use.
Most makers of light bulbs have reduced mercury in their fluorescent lighting products. Thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the average mercury content in CFLs has dropped at least 20 percent or more in the past several years. Some manufacturers have even made further reductions, dropping mercury content to 1 mg per light bulb.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





So is there proof of the connection between global warming and anything?  Where is the solid proof that CO2 emissions are the sole cause of warming and where is the proof that there are more weather events there there have been in the past?

There are so many if and but between your theory and the proof that the connection ceases to exist.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 20, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





I put ol' bob on ignore, but I'm glad you posted this to show that he's found a method to communicate absent profanity.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 20, 2012)

code1211 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...




Ive never placed a single k00k on ignore. This place would suck without them........no, let me rescind that. My life would SUCK without the k00ks on here. Maybe its me but I thrive on assholes making fools of themselves on public forums. Being able to mock the shit out of the mental cases is what makes this place my own personal comedy show!!


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 22, 2012)

_So where did you learn to put zeroes in the place of "o," from sucking somebody off?

You aren't winning, retard.  You and people like you are the reason somebody imported Mexicans.  It dawned on somebody, might as well let 'em run around, up here, so we'll have somebody intelligent, or at least, somebody can cook more than a baked potato.

You aren't winning.  You are a retard.  If somebody wins, it won't be a retard, who tries to suck his way, to a victory, which does not exist._


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _So where did you learn to put zeroes in the place of "o," from sucking somebody off?
> 
> You aren't winning, retard.  You and people like you are the reason somebody imported Mexicans.  It dawned on somebody, might as well let 'em run around, up here, so we'll have somebody intelligent, or at least, somebody can cook more than a baked potato.
> 
> You aren't winning.  You are a retard.  If somebody wins, it won't be a retard, who tries to suck his way, to a victory, which does not exist._




People with real responsibilites in life care about who is winning.

When Cap and Trade passes both houses of Congress and gets signed by a president, give me a yell s0n!!!


Until then, I'll keep on enjoying not losing!!!



ps s0n.......Id say its just about time your side call in...................











*G  I  G  A  N  T  O  R*



Because all your science BS isnt adding up to dick.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 23, 2012)

There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.

There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots.  The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 23, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.
> 
> There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots.  The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.















good luck s0n.............


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> There kind of is a side thing going on, isn't there.
> 
> There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots.  The fucktards want to fuck up, on a side, since if a fucktard has some kind of excuse to fuck up a lot, he can get his fucking idiot to drive a load of DDDs, who can all provide for him, in fucktard's golden years, which will brown out.



*There's loosely connected people with science and common sense, on one side, opposed by fucktards and idiots. *

Can you believe it? 
Those fucktards and idiots want us to spend tens of trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 23, 2012)

_Hey, suckassbil:_

:eusa_retarded:

:why_is_eusa_retarded:

:don't_smile_at_that!:

_Where's any links or rationale, which lead to any backup, of your stupid allegations, *Turdsterqueer*?_


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2012)

I was thinking about this OP today as I cleaned up the toxic disaster on the floor of my garage caused by an incompetent repair to my Bimmer.. 

You can't hold science accountable for the hysteria and abuse by the media and the govt of the scientific process. 

Govt does this all the time.. From knee-jerk reactions to caffeinated energy drinks to DEMANDING gasoline content of celluoustic ethanol WHEN NONE EXISTS! Advice on Breast exams based on political motivations couched in references to misquoted "studies" that are randomly pulled. 

The media faithfully follows the REACTION to the science and never does the background to determine whether it's BAD science or JUNK science. For those of you who THINK that's a meaningless distinction.. 



> What is junk science? | JunkScience.com
> 
> 
> CAUTION: Being wrong is not the same as being guilty of junk science.
> ...



So it's FUTILE to try and stop this or even have scientists worry about their effect on the hysteria. 

BUT --- We CAN demand that the media and govt NOT INTERFERE with the process. That we CAN point out that we don't VOTE on good science or call a huddle and declare that the "debate is over".. When THAT happens -- we need to fight back...


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 23, 2012)

Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"

If it's a BEAMER, whoever repaired it must be somebody you know, and he likely knows YOU.

Think about it.


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 23, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"
> 
> If it's a BEAMER, whoever repaired it must be somebody you know, and he likely knows YOU.
> 
> Think about it.



They are 'beemers'. 

Beams are things used to build skyskrapers.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 23, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Is it junk science, which makes you call your car, a "Bimmer?"
> ...



Yup Percy -- that is correct. beemer - bimmer seems to be a Coastal vs FlyOver diff.. 
Important stuff..


----------



## code1211 (Jun 24, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I was thinking about this OP today as I cleaned up the toxic disaster on the floor of my garage caused by an incompetent repair to my Bimmer..
> 
> You can't hold science accountable for the hysteria and abuse by the media and the govt of the scientific process.
> 
> ...





That is the truth.  When the stenographers who masquerade as reporters take dictation from those they revere, they willingly suspend their disbelief and report it as if they were listening to the ramblings of a burning bush.

When a Conservative says something that needs context to expose the lie, it is happily provided.  With Liberals, that context is happily omitted since the bias of the stenographer and the Liberal are identical.

One of the networks should try reporting the news and adding the context just to see if the viewers appreciate it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 24, 2012)

OK, some context. 

Joseph Fourier noted in about 1820 that by the albedo of the Earth, the planet should be much colder, and stated that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing heat and retaining it. 

Tyndall, in 1859, did the first mapping of the absorption spectra of the the most common GHGs.

In 1896, Svante Arrhenious did the first quantative analysis, and noting the feedback of water vapor from increased CO2. His estimate of the effects of a doubling of CO2 was quite accurate, considering the science of the time.

Since that time there has been many studies on the differant affects of GHGs in the atmosphere. All have shown that it increases the heat retained in the oceans and atmosphere.

In fact, enough studies that there is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, nor one major University anywhere in the world that denies the reality of AGW.

The largest organizetion of physicists in the world, the American Institute of Physics has this site with the history of the study of the greenhouse effect.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, some context.
> 
> Joseph Fourier noted in about 1820 that by the albedo of the Earth, the planet should be much colder, and stated that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing heat and retaining it.
> 
> ...






OK.....but so what?


Everybody and his brother know that the doomsday scenario's are contrived and subsequently pushed by the special interests.......as FlaCalTenn astutely points out, "the money chasers".

Read about what happened in Canada back in 2010..........



*Special interest group plans to 'dupe' public about green energy costs: Tories*


The Canadian Press
Nov 09, 2010 

 TORONTO - A special interest group is planning to launch a campaign to ``dupe'' the public about the true cost of the government's push for green energy, Opposition Leader Tim Hudak charged Tuesday.

A confidential document obtained by the Tories advises a group of unnamed green energy developers on how to promote the governing Liberals' policy and expedite lucrative government contracts for renewable energy.

Special interest group plans to 'dupe' public about green energy costs: Tories - 680News





Only the radical environmentalists think this is an anomoly. The money chasers have these people wrapped around their finger. Thankfully for the rest of us ( a huge majority, by the way), people are not ready to roll back their standard of living to the dark ages based upon an unprovable scientific theory based upon highly erratic computer models.


For the rest of us...............its called *WINNING*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 24, 2012)

> Why is climate science political?



Its political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that theyd somehow be compelled to do without to address the effects of climate change. Theyre fearful America will become a third-world country, that everyone would be forced to live in a shack with no AC and no car.  

Needless to say this is idiocy. 

But the idiocy continues: 

Conservatives incorrectly believe that new regulations supposedly designed to address climate change would adversely effect business profits, causing unemployment to rise, and sending more jobs overseas.  

In their willful ignorance conservatives fail to understand that business can profit from accommodating climate change, creating jobs and increasing profits. 

And last but not least:  

Conservatives needlessly fear that entering into treaty agreements with other nations to address climate change is the first step to a one world government, and the loss of American sovereignty. Indeed, its the cornerstone of neo-con paranoia and jingoistic bombast. 

But the essence of conservative opposition to climate change science remains their fear, ignorance, and greed. Consequently, they ignore the facts of science, and the reasonable understanding that pumping excessive amounts of toxic waste into the biosphere is a bad idea, whether it causes climate change or not.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 24, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why is climate science political?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This is the perfect example of why climate science is political.

Here, we read a politician who avoids any comment on the science and addresses only the political components of the topic.

You would do well to address the science and show the proof that justifies the political responses.  Until you prove what the cause of the temperature rise has been, you will have difficulty prescribing the solution that will reverses the effects you fear.

In any event, the temperature seems to have stalled for about a decade, so the measures you exhort us to adopt may be unneeded.

I have no carbon credits.  Would you like to buy a clue?


----------



## dblack (Jun 24, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why is climate science political?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, it's political "because conservatives ..."

Got it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2012)




----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 24, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why is climate science political?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about:

"It is political because liberals fear individual freedom"

or

"It is political because mankind is unproven to be the primary driver of climate change"

or

"It is political beause of religious zealotry for the planet."

or 

"It is political because of hatred for capitalism and the laws of economics."

Needless to say, these are all idiotic but true reasons why none the less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why is climate science political?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*It&#8217;s political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that they&#8217;d somehow be compelled to &#8216;do without&#8217; to address the effects of climate change.* 

I'd happily sacrifice all you have to prevent "climate change". 
Where do I sign?


----------



## Trakar (Jun 24, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


>



Looks to me more like "spinning in place" and turning junk metal into even more worthless junk.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 24, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Its political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that theyd somehow be compelled to do without to address the effects of climate change.*
> 
> I'd happily sacrifice all you have to prevent "climate change".
> Where do I sign?



Ah true conservatism rears its head.

Others must regress so that they can live in their comfortable delusions of the past


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Its political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that theyd somehow be compelled to do without to address the effects of climate change.*
> ...



He wants sacrifice, so he should sacrifice. For the planet!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2012)

Trakar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Its political because conservatives are fearful of sacrifice, that theyd somehow be compelled to do without to address the effects of climate change.*
> ...





Actually..............conservative want simply to live in the present, which means not following the bomb throwing warmers adovcating for a return to candlelight, Flintstones type vehicles and LIttle Rascal's communication systems!!!










Only the k00k left think EVERYBODY wants to embrace pronounced levels of gay...........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2012)

Clikc your heels together three times and say "Without AGW, Earth would be in balance"


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 24, 2012)

_Hurry up, *suckassbi*l!  Win the race!  Faster!

What if you actually had to think, *suckassbil*?  You win at retard-rants, congratulations.

If not for the greenhouse effect, the planet would be a lot cooler.  How some idiots can't see GHGs will proliferate, I have no idea, since here comes more atmospheric CO2, CH4, and H2O, bigtime.

How idiots can't see some sort of dilemma means the idiocy index is off the charts AND off the hook._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 24, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


>



Save the tires there Smoke... You got 115 laps to go...


----------



## rdean (Jun 24, 2012)

Why is climate science political?

I should have gone ahead and answered this a long time ago.  Sorry.

The answer is, "Because Republicans think science is a faith they don't believe in and they are in denial".  

Hoped that helped.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 24, 2012)

rdean said:


> Why is climate science political?
> 
> I should have gone ahead and answered this a long time ago.  Sorry.
> 
> ...


Trust me,  you're no help.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 24, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is only your delusions that equate progress to something horrible that should be feared and rejected.


----------



## Trakar (Jun 24, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Why is climate science political?
> ...



Trust has to be earned, and thus far you've demonstrated nothing worthy of confidence in your abilities or understandings.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 24, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, some context.
> 
> Joseph Fourier noted in about 1820 that by the albedo of the Earth, the planet should be much colder, and stated that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing heat and retaining it.
> 
> ...






Still waiting for that photographic evidence of the sea level rise on the shores of the great coastal cities of the world.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2012)

Trakar said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Trakar said:
> ...





Hmmmm...........lets see.......if Im the one having all the delusions, why is my side winning? 

Why is it very few people are knocking down their representatives door, telling them, "SAVE THE PLANET BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!"

I'll tell you why......................

Because a resounding % of the public is not near the stage of jumping off buildings like the k00ks are s0n!!! Thats why!! This shit is on nobodys radar in terms of concerns..........and nobody is about to embrace the dreams of the k00k radicals and throw away their standard of living based upon a fucking computer model.

Heres a recent photo of Bobgnote trying to advocate to his family about being aware of conservation shit................this is how this dolt gets around each day. While we are real proud of him, Im thinking most people would pass on k00k radical transportation bliss...........


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 24, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Still waiting for that photographic evidence of the sea level rise on the shores of the great coastal cities of the world.



_You are waiting forever, since NOBODY would leave a bunch of cameras up, for 100 years, in 1000 locations, when a new satellite comes along, every few years.

You will wait, forever, since you and the other idiots are always trying to shove a funky skeptic's montage of La Jolla, with no tidal reference points.  What part of look at the sat-data is so hard to understand, even for a completely moronic wingpunk-retard?

Hey!  Wingpunk.  Try to get some Japanese guys, to leave their cameras up, so somebody can get a bunch of shots, like cameras don't ever get stolen or eat shit, in salt water.

Don't forget to calibrate high and low tide marks.  Asshole.  Show me the money._


----------



## Trakar (Jun 25, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Hmmmm...........lets see.......if Im the one having all the delusions, why is my side winning?...



 That is the primary delusion you suffer from.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2012)

Trakar said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm...........lets see.......if Im the one having all the delusions, why is my side winning?...
> ...



Exactly! That's why we signed Kyoto and passed Cap & Trade.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trakar said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Oh, so _*that's*_ why the recent green goobah confab in Rio was such a smashing success.

Oh, wait....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

Two good answers there... +1 and +1... 

Too many left-leaning political delusions to here to list. I'm still trying to unplug enough battery chargers so that I can afford to charge my EV..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2012)

It will take a series of really major catastrophes before the willfully ignorant will see reality. And then they will blame the scientists for not telling them that this was coming. In spite of a half century of scientists doing exactly that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> It will take a series of really major catastrophes before the willfully ignorant will see reality. And then they will blame the scientists for not telling them that this was coming. In spite of a half century of scientists doing exactly that.



Wow.. I haven't heard a biblical pronouncement like that since the Burning Bush spoke to Moses... Good job.. 

Pray for disaster -- the fulfillment of Gorean prophesy is nigh!!

How about you answer my question as to why the warmers are forcing the Earth to play Russian Roulette with CO2 when we could be building in nuclear power?? Reverend..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> It will take a series of really major catastrophes before the willfully ignorant will see reality. And then they will blame the scientists for not telling them that this was coming. In spite of a half century of scientists doing exactly that.




Ray..........you know the catastrophes are going to have to be far, far from normal right? Like something out of that movie ( cant remember the name.......giant hurricanes all over the planet simultaneously). Anything weve seen on this planet the past 3 or 4 decades are the same things we saw 100........200 years ago. But dont take my word for it..............look at weather related disasters going back 100's of years. Its all the same shit......some far, far worse than what we see now. Flooding, typhoons..........you name it. Its all there.......but COMPLETELY IGNORED by the warmers.

Something that I think needs to be placed sharply in focus here...............

The environmental warmers consider global warming effects to be the most pressing concern of our time. But for a gigantic % of our public, its so far down the list its virtually off the list. Why? Because in 2012, there are things much more pressing in their lives and thats just the way it is. Millions upon millions are barely making it day to day just trying to stay out front with the bills and paying the mortgage. And what? Like they are going to agree to pay $600/month instead of $300/month for electricity because of what might happen 50 or 100 years from now. The whole idea is not at all grounded............"Yeah........Im ok with losing my home and my credit rating, but at least I'm saving distant generations!!!!"



Like I said............when we get naked water skiiing on a lake in Alaska in mid January over a three week period...........or Russian kids having mega-squirt water gun battles in Siberia in February for a few weekends, some people might come off center. But not a moment sooner. Thats just the way it is.  This is why the dreams of the radical environmentalists will never, ever be realized........100% certainty. And think about it...........how many decades have we been hearing all this BS prediction crap and most all of it never comes to pass. People werent born yesterday as most of the radicals think.


The money chasers on the green segment of the economy get the radicals all tingly in the leg, but its a total ruse. Anybody who thinks for a single second that the future of energy is solar power and windmills is the epitome of a sucker. Natural gas is about to explode in this country. Why? Economic necessesity s0ns............thats the way it works. The suckers will continue their lifelong fantasy, which I guess is cool, but it will be nothing more than a fringe effort.


Im no scientist but I own this forum in terms of the stark realities I slam the radicals with all the time. And they hate my ass............because they know they are losing and I...........am not.


Indeed........for all the thosands of links posted up on the "consensus" science, Ive yet to see in the past three years a single link that displays one iota of evidence that the "consensus" science is mattering in the real world.


So...........who exactly is winning?


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 26, 2012)

_DUH! *Suckassbil's*side is winning!  Welcome, to M.R.ica.

You win, when you're dead, you king of fucktards._


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _DUH! *Suckassbil's*side is winning!  Welcome, to M.R.ica.
> 
> You win, when you're dead, you king of fucktards._



Cheer up bobby.. I'm worried about you...


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2012)

the estimates for Antacrtica's ice extent and ice cap are all across the board. the GRACE measurements are based on assumptions and modelling so they wont be reliable until a reasonable length of time has passed to match reality. 

anyone who says they know what is happening in either the Antarctic or the Arctic is just blowing smoke.

anyone who believes the dire predictions now has to ignore the failure of dire predictions throughout the history of mankind.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 26, 2012)

IanC said:


> the estimates for Antacrtica's ice extent and ice cap are all across the board. the GRACE measurements are based on assumptions and modelling so they wont be reliable until a reasonable length of time has passed to match reality.
> 
> anyone who says they know what is happening in either the Antarctic or the Arctic is just blowing smoke.
> 
> anyone who believes the dire predictions now has to ignore the failure of dire predictions throughout the history of mankind.



_OK, *Crapforbrains*, let's go over the post-politics reality, to see if any of it sinks in!

1. Temperature rise is ACCELERATING!
2. SLR will follow, from 2 mm, now past 3 mm per year, to a higher rate, of rise!
3. Arctic perennial ice and Greenland ice is melting, while the Arctic out-gasses shitloads!
4. West Antarctic ice is melting, at a rate of 100 cubic km, per year!
  a. East Antarctica and Antarctic sea ice are holding steady, but that could change.

Let's call your brain a number 2, since you have crap, for brains.  Specify your area of stupidity, since your ignorance is willful.  I'll go over the threads and websites, for you, since you are too fucking stupid, to hit search OR to read thread posts._


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 26, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the estimates for Antacrtica's ice extent and ice cap are all across the board. the GRACE measurements are based on assumptions and modelling so they wont be reliable until a reasonable length of time has passed to match reality.
> ...




#1 is clearly wrong, and there isn't a shred of credible evidence for numbers 2, 3 and 4


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _DUH! *Suckassbil's*side is winning!  Welcome, to M.R.ica.
> 
> You win, when you're dead, you king of fucktards._







Ok then.......we should be seeing renewables powering all of America any day now!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2012)

LOL........had to repost my own post because it is one of such epic pwn, it had to be reposted..........







Hope the k00ks realize...........the catastrophes are going to have to be far, far from normal right? Like something out of that movie ( cant remember the name.......giant hurricanes all over the planet simultaneously). Anything weve seen on this planet the past 3 or 4 decades are the same things we saw 100........200 years ago. But dont take my word for it..............look at weather related disasters going back 100's of years. Its all the same shit......some far, far worse than what we see now. Flooding, typhoons..........you name it. Its all there.......but COMPLETELY IGNORED by the warmers.

Something that I think needs to be placed sharply in focus here...............

The environmental warmers consider global warming effects to be the most pressing concern of our time. But for a gigantic % of our public, its so far down the list its virtually off the list. Why? Because in 2012, there are things much more pressing in their lives and thats just the way it is. Millions upon millions are barely making it day to day just trying to stay out front with the bills and paying the mortgage. And what? Like they are going to agree to pay $600/month instead of $300/month for electricity because of what might happen 50 or 100 years from now. The whole idea is not at all grounded............"Yeah........Im ok with losing my home and my credit rating, but at least I'm saving distant generations!!!!"



Like I said............when we get naked water skiiing on a lake in Alaska in mid January over a three week period...........or Russian kids having mega-squirt water gun battles in Siberia in February for a few weekends, some people might come off center. But not a moment sooner. Thats just the way it is.  This is why the dreams of the radical environmentalists will never, ever be realized........100% certainty. And think about it...........how many decades have we been hearing all this BS prediction crap and most all of it never comes to pass. People werent born yesterday as most of the radicals think.


The money chasers on the green segment of the economy get the radicals all tingly in the leg, but its a total ruse. Anybody who thinks for a single second that the future of energy is solar power and windmills is the epitome of a sucker. Natural gas is about to explode in this country. Why? Economic necessesity s0ns............thats the way it works. The suckers will continue their lifelong fantasy, which I guess is cool, but it will be nothing more than a fringe effort.


Im no scientist but I own this forum in terms of the stark realities I slam the radicals with all the time. And they hate my ass............because they know they are losing and I...........am not.


Indeed........for all the thosands of links posted up on the "consensus" science, Ive yet to see in the past three years a single link that displays one iota of evidence that the "consensus" science is mattering in the real world.


So...........who exactly is winning?


The fucktards!!!




*edit>> eager to see the first response of genius <<edit*


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 26, 2012)

bripat9643 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



_*Buttpunk*, you are ignoring Trakar's graph, again, re 1.  Remember when Professor Trakar posted the graph, of temperatures, 1950-present, which turns UP?  Was this at the Hansen thread, and then you disappeared?  What, you think I should post that same graph, every other day, since YOU SUCK?

Eat shit and die, *buttpunk*.  Credible evidence, for 2, 3, and 4 is like the graphs, showing number 1 is happening is all over these threads AND all over the internet.  You are too queer to pay attention, and your asshole is so full of dick, you can't remember shit._


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 26, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...





s0n.......what? Again with all this pronounced anger!!


wtf: topics - whatthefuck.com help



Anyway...................


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 27, 2012)

_Conservative zombies back in the *bw* days hobble off, for a constitutional:_






_*Sucksassandballs* on the hunt, for warmists:_






_Colorado seems to be on fire, *sucksassandballs*!  Those Rocky Mountain high-zombies will catch on fire!  Hose yourself down, before you stagger off, in the direction, of Waldo Canyon, eh?_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _Conservative zombies back in the *bw* days hobble off, for a constitutional:_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It happens s0n...........decades ago, there was an ad campaign where they used this forest fire bear guy. Im fairly certain that they were run in Colorado and Im fairly certain Colorado survived its share of forest fires in the 70's.............asshole.


s0n..........like many on the far left in here, you'd happily buy a big old bag of dog doo for $1,000/pop if it was packaged up just right.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 27, 2012)

_Yeah, right, Wald0.  In n0t the middle 0f n0where, d0 they teach special class, t0 use zer0, f0r o?

You sure are a queer bag of dogshit, *sucksassandballs*.  I wouldn't pay, to piss on y0u!_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _Yeah, right, Wald0.  In n0t the middle 0f n0where, d0 they teach special class, t0 use zer0, f0r o?
> 
> You sure are a queer bag of dogshit, *sucksassandballs*.  I wouldn't pay, to piss on y0u!_




"Not in the middle of nowhere" = a stones throw from NYC..........not some cheesdick, hillrat town most of the k00ks in here hail from like Scratchmyassville, Illinois........Irrelevantstown, Maine,........Bumfook, Michigan..........Mooreheadsville, Pennsylvania..........Elephant Butte, New Mexico These are the places these k00k lefties grow up despeartely seeking a cause..........any fucking cause, as long as its hysterical


These people need a beer and a plan and a place to go.


Oh.......and some links............


----------



## kowalskil (Jun 27, 2012)

Saigon said:


> I don't see science as being a political issue.
> 
> Good governance should be about acting on accurate scientific data - not about distorting the truth, hiding from it, or pretending the facts are not what they are.
> 
> ...



All issues on which people are polarized can be exploited by politicians. Some scientific projects are costly, in terms of tax money. That money is controlled by politicians.

Ludwik Kowalski


----------



## Trakar (Jun 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> It will take a series of really major catastrophes before the willfully ignorant will see reality. And then they will blame the scientists for not telling them that this was coming. In spite of a half century of scientists doing exactly that.



Nah most of them only let their inner kook out to play on the internet, they may wink and nod at people who express doubt in real life, but once they feel the mountain of evidence and sway of public opinion supports that evidence they will simply act like they've always known the truth and argued for it for years before their position was finally vindicated.

Look at the "truthers" most now deny ever having argued against the mainstream perspective.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Actually, technically, whether some crap is ACCELERATING or DECELERATING depends on the timescale that you observe it on. TECHNICALLY, if you look over the past 10 years or so, temps are DE-celerating. It's like asking if the stock market is rising. Apparently it is over a timescale of weeks, months, but maybe not a decade. Is it ACCELERATING? It was for 2 days last week..


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 27, 2012)

*"Why is climate science political?"*

Shit happens.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

kowalskil said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see science as being a political issue.
> ...



interesting background you have there. I might want to read that bio in your footer...


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 28, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> *"Why is climate science political?"*
> 
> Shit happens.



_Without the retard vote, shit wouldn't happen, in US politics.

Without the retarded constituencies, politicians wouldn't be allowed, to lock up, in opposition to any reaction, to ongoing global climate change, whether or not people recognized, how humans have simultaneously defoliated and jacked up emissions, year after year, leading to a cumulative effect, greater than instant human emissions.

Without shit happening, real estate couldn't inflate, on wars, illegal immigration, legal immigration, prison industry, petroleum and coal-based industry, and on representative tyranny, all with a carbon footprint.  Without retards, OTC derivatives wouldn't inflate, to a several trillion dollar bubble.  Without tards, even in the old country, the Euro wouldn't be causing problems, while social policies in the European Union stayed un-unified.

For what shit might happen, see O.R.'s thread, re "A real alarmist viewpoint."

The outcome for inaction will land, past the PETM extinction, toward the P/T extinction, maybe even beyond, but who cares?  The human population will drastically decline._


----------

