# The Arrogance of the Warmers



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2011)

We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.

The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?

Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers?  Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?


----------



## Dragon (Sep 25, 2011)

Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."

Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?



I never said any of that!


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 25, 2011)

they hate science and history...oh and educated people.....and blacks.......and latinos........and the poor........and anyone who doesnt agree with them....... and mulims........ and dictionarys..............and encyclopedias and on and on a nd on


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?



Are you saying that AGW is "Settled science" and beyond question?


----------



## SW2SILVER (Sep 25, 2011)

Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?




So, AGW>c?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> they hate science and history...oh and educated people.....and blacks.......and latinos........and the poor........and anyone who doesnt agree with them....... and mulims........ and dictionarys..............and encyclopedias and on and on a nd on



Your contributions are the highlight of my day


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?



The warmers are the only ones claiming "the science is settled" and demanding that the taxpayers cough up $trillions to fund their delusions.  

That pretty much defines arrogance.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?



The evidence isn't overwhelming and the the arguments are psuedo-scientific.  For instance, the argument that "the science is settled" is a non-scientific argument.  In fact, it's the sure sign of a con.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?



Record levels?  Check your paleohistory.  Atmospheric CO2 concentrations on earth have been as high as 7000 ppm with no runaway global warming, and several times in the past century and a half, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been quite a bit higher than the present 380 or 390 ppm.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 25, 2011)

'The arrogance of the entire world except American Republicans,' Frank.

There's no such thing as 'Warmers.'  There's only obnoxious American Republicans, and the whole rest of the world.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Sep 25, 2011)

Lindzen lays it out:  Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action | Watts Up With That?


----------



## code1211 (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?




HADCrut, RSS, UAH and NOAA all seem to have collected data that reveals that there has been cooling since 2002.  I'm sure that given this interpretation of data, they will soon be dismissed as non-believers, um, not peer reviewed.

Not saying that science is always right.  Just saying.

2011 August 09 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change


----------



## code1211 (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?





And THAT is the arrogance in a nutshell.

The whole question posed by this debate is whether or not CO2 is the driving factor of climate change.  

Your statement indicates that you assert what is not proven and THAT is arrogance.  Might be impudence.  Might be both.  Whatever it is, it's not science.  When and if this is proven, then we might be able to do something to address it.

Without a firm idea of what the cause is, a firm idea of how to reverse that cause is impossible to create.  

Right now, Warmers are insisting that we sacrifice chickens to change the weather.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 25, 2011)

I believe in god and believe god made it all possible for the earth to warm and cool in natural cycles. He made the sun that warms the earth and the green house gases that hold the heat in. God gave us a brain to think for our selfs also.


----------



## gslack (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?



No what he was saying is, something as set in stone and perceived as fact as the speed of light being a constant is now in question by some of the top minds who just spent their careers accepting it as indisputable fact. And that being the case to say AGW theory is a settled science is presumptuous at best and a selling of scientific integrity at worst. 

Why not try a genuine argument of his point rather trying to make an obtuse exaggeration of it..


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?


Completely unproven that it is not produced from other sources besides mankind.  Warmists have NO absolute proof of anything.  You can say that CO2 increased, but you cannot link it irrefutably to strictly anthropogenic sources.

Other than that, you do have a cool avatar.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 25, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> they hate science and history...oh and educated people.....and blacks.......and latinos........and the poor........and anyone who doesnt agree with them....... and mulims........ and dictionarys..............and encyclopedias and on and on a nd on


You played the race card in a discussion on the farce of Global Warming????????

That's a first.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> SW2SILVER said:
> 
> 
> > Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?
> ...



Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Arrogance of warmers?  That itself is arrogant, assumes someone KNOWS the  absolute truth. It's just a coincidence  7 billion people put out record levels of CO2 in the last  ten -twenty years?









And?  CO2 levels were much higher 200 years ago and NOTHING HAPPENED.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature

Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John&#8217;s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, Massachusetts 02536, USA
Correspondence to: Rosemarie E. Came1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.E.C. (Email: rcame@gps.caltech.edu).


Top of pageAbstractAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543&#8211;248&#8201;million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the &#948;18O of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the &#8216;carbonate clumped isotope&#8217; method5&#8212;an approach that, unlike the &#948;18O method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443&#8211;423&#8201;Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314&#8211;300&#8201;Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1, 6.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.



And we are supposed to believe the bullshit sources you've supplied in the past.

Those can be disproven as well.... there are sources on BOTH sides of the debate. What makes yours correct and ours wrong?

Besides, what caused the end of the other ice ages? Why did the earth warm and cool in the past.
As far as I can see the Fred Flinstones' car was powered by his feet....   what caused the earth to warm back then?

STFU old crocks.... b/c as far as I am concerned you "warmers" are full of HOT air!


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature
> 
> Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
> Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5
> ...





And this can be proven how????? 


Oh, because you say so.....Oh, OK.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 25, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.
> ...



'as far as I am concerned* the entire world except stubborn American Republicans *are full of HOT air.'


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...







No, it's not.  It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago.  Amazingly enough correlating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores.  Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to say it is the truth.  Unlike you arrogant warmers.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> 'as far as I am concerned* the entire world except stubborn American Republicans *are full of HOT air.'



Well that leaves me out in the cold.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.



NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It? | NewsBusters.org

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 25, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate


----------



## code1211 (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.





And how do the warmers feel about the CO2 rising since 2002 while the most respected gatherers of climate data all record global cooling?

Are they collecting scientific evidence or something you define differently?


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.
> ...





Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists | Mail Online

_Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels.
But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940
_


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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







How about posting that study that showed CO2 levels rising to a very high level and for the next 1000 years there were two cycles of heating and cooling while the CO2 levels remained elevated, thus showing no correlation at all between CO2 levels and temperatures.  C'mon olfraud repost it, I dare you!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> 
> Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?



Only when trillions of dollars of "global emergency remedy" are at stake..


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 25, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> ...



It all comes down to the almighty dollar!



Can any of you "warmers" say Solyndra..... or do you plead the 5th?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 25, 2011)

Do you believe that the Climate prediction center, Noaa, Nws, Nasa, Ncar should all be defunded?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the arrogance of these damned warmers. How dare they present scientific evidence about a scientific subject. The damned arrogance.
> ...



Better to ask how one feels about people that continually lie. Cooling since 2002? 2001 through 2010 the warmest decade on record. 2005, 2010 tied with 1998 as the warmest years on record. That's cooling?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

westwall said:


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



Very stupid of you, Walleyes. For if you look at the graph, the variation in CO2 is about 282 to 272 ppm. And the 282 was during the MWP, while the 272 was during the Little Ice Age. Yes, I will post that site and it's graphs again.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> ...



Back up your flap yap. 

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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








Nice attempt there olfraud but that's not the study I'm thinking of.  Post the correct one.  Chicken!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

Do you have some study by an obese drugged out radio jock, Walleyes?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


And that's the essence of my point.  They refuse, for politico-religious reasons to separate the fact that the mere fact man's industrial era began in a time of cold and has since warmed from those lows.  They refuse to admit because of their desired pre-determined outcome that all ecological change is both negative and man's fault as an excuse to put into action their fascist desires for ruling their fellow men.

All their solutions are fascist.  All their goals are Malthusian.  All their ethics are bankrupt to meeting their greed for power for everything justifies anything to achieve it.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I never said any of that!



Sure you did, or implied it anyway. Recent experiments cast doubt on a central idea of special relativity, therefore those who want action taken against global warming are being "arrogant" because their science can't be any more certain than Einstein's.

There is always a possibility of being wrong; that's part of doing science. That doesn't mean we sit paralyzed and unable to take action when all the available evidence says we need to in order to avert a catastrophe. Sure, the science could be wrong. It probably isn't, but it could be. But since that can be said at any state of knowledge, the conclusion if you want to go that direction is that we should never do anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I never said any of that!
> ...



There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.

I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.
> 
> I've been asking for years and I've never gotten any Warmer to post the experiment with results described



Then you're constructing a test from your own imagination which is inappropriate to the subject and designed to be impossible to meet.

The science is sound. About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt. There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.

Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.
> ...



What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I never said any of that!
> ...





> There is always a possibility of being wrong;



Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory, just like land bridges, Phrenology, Spontaneous Generation and an Earth Centered Universe.

Can be and is wrong seems to be more and more the case.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.



I'm sorry, but I'll accept the views of the climate science community over yours on that assessment.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory



No, there is not.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Now let's not be TOO hasty to put it so highly in the pantheon of science.  After all, it's a climatological philosopher's stone.

It's hot, AGW
It's cold, AGW
It's wet, AGW.
It's dry, AGW.
It snows, AGW.
Comets,  AGW.
Monkeys fly out our butts, AGW.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and there is more and more proof showing that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a failed theory
> ...


The first stage of grief is denial.  

:::slaps forehead as he sees all the dumbasses trying to be witty about this snappy remark.:::

Show to me proof the source of any CO2 in the atmosphere.  

Secondly, show me that our insignificant portion of this part of the atmosphere is actually directly able to affect climate change.

Thirdly, show me that this is a BAD thing.

Fourthly, give me a solution that is NOT an excuse for global ecofascism.

This type of challenge has been failed for the entire time I've been posting here.  So don't feel bad when you do too.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> The first stage of grief is denial.



The first step in proving your assertion is NOT making a wisecrack.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The first stage of grief is denial.
> ...


Sorry, you have to prove the existence.  I do not have to prove a non-existence.  that's the way it works.  You assert AGW exists, you must prove it exists.  You have not.  You have only alleged and when open debate and HONEST debate has been done, and your numbers have been checked... they've been found wanting at best, an utter joke and fraud at the worst.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What you're describing is not science; it's somewhere between alchemy and astrology.
> ...



Why do you even bother responding if you punt at the first chance you get? 

My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming and the first and only hint anyone needs is that they're calling it "Settled science" where there is no such a thing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate. We have consensus.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 26, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming



And again, I don't consider you an authority to be making a statement like this. At least when you were talking about the inevitable uncertainty in science, with the recent experiments possibly invalidating special relativity as a background, you were on solid ground as far as that went.

I don't know that "settled science" is a phrase actually used in the scientific community. However, it may be used from an outsider's perspective to observe that, in the major peer-reviewed publication, the evidence for or against AGW is no longer even being discussed. Here's an experiment of mine that you can repeat to illustrate this.

Journal home : Nature

There is a link to _Nature_ on line, the internet publication of arguably the most prestigious general-science peer-reviewed journal in the world. It has an onboard search engine. Put the words "climate change" into the search engine and do a search.

Read the abstracts of the first 100 articles that come up from the search. On the basis of the abstracts, divide the articles into three categories:

1) Those that either argue in favor of AGW, or accept it as a given and discuss something more specific under its rubric.
2) Those that argue against AGW, either claiming that the planet is not warming or positing some non-anthropogenic cause for the warming that is observed and claiming on that basis that AGW may be false.
3) Those that have nothing to do with AGW (e.g., studies of fossil records of prehistoric climate change).

Every time I have done that in recent years, category 2 has been empty. The number of articles seriously trying to refute AGW has been zero. That doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of controversy, but it's been around the fine points, not the overall idea that the planet is warming and human activity is the primary culprit. It also doesn't mean that you can't find some discussion of natural causes of part of the warming that's observed. But while you should not find scientists using the phrase "settled science" in a professional context, we as laypersons may observe from the outside that yes, the science on this does appear to be settled. The only "scientists" (by which I mean persons who have earned a PhD in some science or other) remaining on the other side of the debate are not publishing real science in real peer-reviewed journals, but instead their views are given a platform by the fossil-fuel industry.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? Come on Walleyes, this is the second time you have made this nonsense statement. Stand and deliver, boy, or be branded a lying flap yap.



I already provided you with the studies of CO2 levels in the past couple of centuries rocks.  Well over 400 ppm in the 1800's.  I don't have time to find the post for you right now but if you can't manage it, I will find it for you later.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 26, 2011)

westwall said:


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




The question is why should I accept one study over possibly thousands that say otherwise? Those tree and plant "studies" don't show it as high as today, but higher then the ice cores, yes.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The first stage of grief is denial.
> ...







No, you have made the extraordinary claim that the weather we are seeing today is somehow exceptional.  I look forward to your supporting evidence.  Please note however, we require EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, not computer models.  They are so poor as to be unusable.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2011)

Matthew said:


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







The question is why would you use anything from a group that has willingly, knowingly, and repeatedly falsified data?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

westwall said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Oh.... welll... THAaaat!  

Stupid empirical evidence.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 26, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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




Please check the graphs of the data collected byt hte most respected climate organizations on the planet.  And, yes, when the trend of temperatures is cooling during the period stated, that is cooling.

Is it NOAA, or HADCrut that you believe is lying?

2011 August 09 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change


----------



## code1211 (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I never said any of that!
> ...





The problem is that the direct cause-effect relationship and and an accurate prediction of the effects of the imagined cause have not been established.

You are asking that we believe what you say on faith alone.

That is not science.  It is religion.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.
> ...





Cut through the BS.

How much will the temperature rise with the increase in CO2?  What is the maximum if there is one, for the temperature to rise.

In the past, when the level of CO2 was something along the lines of 18 times the level of those we experience today, how high was the accompanying temperature?

As an aside, why did the global temperatures start to rise before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Not to mention "Direct Cause Effect" relationship has not been established for anything whined about by the warmists.  It's all models and correlary... like non-site pollution.  The two concepts are NOT inter-related.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...




Lest we forget, the reflex reaction "cause" of the Japan Earth Quake was Global Warming.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The first stage of grief is denial.
> ...





As I understand it, his assertion is that the case you propose is not proven.  I don't think it is either.

How is it logical that you are asking him to disprove something that is not yet proven?

Being "not yet proven" seems to eliminate the need to disprove it since by not being proven yet implies that it's already unproven.

Pretty simple logic.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Did you get a hernia trying to move them thar goalposts?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 26, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There's no possibility of your being wrong because you cannot show a single repeatable laboratory experiment that eliminates all variables save a 100PPM increase in CO2 which according to your hypothesis will warm the experiment up to 5 degrees and acidify any water in the container.
> ...



What you call "inappropriate" and impossible to meet" is what genuine scientists call a "well designed experiment."  That's how we know you're nothing more than another global warming con-artist.



Dragon said:


> The science is sound.



That's hilarious coming from someone who just proved he doesn't know a thing about science.



Dragon said:


> About the central argument, that the earth is warming and that the primary cause of this is human activity, there is little disagreement nor any significant doubt.



There's plenty of disagreement and plenty of doubt.



Dragon said:


> There remains considerable uncertainty about the exact amount of warming to be expected and about the consequences for life on earth and for humanity/civilization. Also, as Bill Clinton said recently in a speech on the subject, there's room for political dispute about the best and most economical way to reduce our carbon footprint, but that can't even start until the irrational denialism, driven by a well-funded propaganda campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry, is dropped from serious politics.
> 
> Your own argument in the OP is no more logical than those who say we can't trust science because scientists lie about their findings in order to get more funding. With that attitude, we return to the Dark Ages.



So, after attacking the argument with a couple of logical fallacies, untruths and outright lies, he proceeds directly to his solution.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2011)

Ah Pattycake. The poster child for willfull ignorance.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 26, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...



s'il te plait.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde:

Remove the edit to my quote or get turned over to the mods.  You can add it after in your own section, but do NOT presume to edit my words like that.  It's a violation of TOS.

And we are not so familiar you may use 'S'il te plait'.  S'il vous plaiez is proper.  Deux faux pas.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That's as good as it gets.

Mademoiselle Tete a la Merde: according to Google; 'Miss a shit head.' I get the point but can you provide a better dialectic translation?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Sorry, I didn't have to rely on computers to translate.  I learned myself, rusty, but the meaning holds up as well as "Ich bin ein Berliner."

Je parle francias, mais Je parle mauvais.

Now.  Remove the edit to it's proper place S'il vous plaiez? or do I still need to report it?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 26, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Ich spreche ein Bissien Deutsch, y se habla poquito espaniol, para no parle francias.

I believe my edit has sufficiently identified that the edit was made by me, unless a mod tells me otherwise.  Personally I don't feel it was dishonest in its original form, either.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...







Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.  

Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real.  Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...






Doesn't matter what you "think", those are the rules...follow them.


----------



## gslack (Sep 26, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Only a douchebag would edit someones words in a quote attributed to them...

But you have done this before and been called on huh... One day someone may take notice of your habits across multiple identities on here and do the right thing...

You and all of your misquoting alter-egos are pathetic..


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...







You speak one little German?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
> 
> Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real.  Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".



it just kills me that these warmist turds don't see any downside to siphoning off $trillions of dollars from the private economy.  Of course, for them, there is no downside.  They expect to be on the receiving end of the the transaction.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Ich spreche ein Bissien Deutsch, y se habla poquito espaniol, para no parle francias.
> ...



Also "Spanish" is "Espanol," not "espaniol."  What he said is "a little Spanish is spoken."  Not "I speak Spanish" which would be "hablo espanol."


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty.  That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't.  There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.

But let's say it was 'just a maybe.'  Say a 50% chance.

If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number).  Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.

If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then?  Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Yeah, and the handoff to the mods has been done.  This practice has been called a violation of TOS so it's up to the mods now on what they want to do.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Are you being a whiny bitch..., AGAIN?!?!  There was no intent to deceive this time either.  Quit writing such stupid posts and perhaps we wouldn't find the need to mock you so often.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Konnie, you couldn't mock an apple pie let alone me.  Follow the TOS or keep getting reported.

If this is all you got, you're even more pathetic than I thought.  If this is the only way you can be (allegedly) witty, you need to go back to 'hellokittyonline.com'


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Shutup tool.  It wasn't done in a dishonest way.

Whining about it?  Yeah that part's kinda pathetic....


----------



## wirebender (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Shutup tool.  It wasn't done in a dishonest way.



Any editing of someone else's words is inherently dishonest.  It is surprising that there would be people intelligent enough to access a computer who don't grasp such a basic concept.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Shutup tool.  It wasn't done in a dishonest way.
> ...



Please... Spare me.  

It was done completely transparantly.  Fitz doesn't think he was misrepresented, unless he's 'not intelligent enough to grasp such a basic concept.'

He just wants to exercise authority.  Since he has none, I will change it only when a mod says to.  As there was no intent to misrepresent, I feel it's within TOS.

If you're too dumb to recognize it was strictly tongue-in-cheek, that is your problem, not mine.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


I want you to follow the rules.  People have gotten bancations for this in the past, you get to toe the same line regardless of how 'humorous or innocent' it was.

But, I guess you guys needed a break from getting your asses handed to you throughout the threads over being a) wrong and b) arrogant.

We ready to try and weasel your way out of your untenable position again?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap. 

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a danger to our society. 

But, of course, Knownothings like Fritzy have drugged out radio jocks, with barely a high school education, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen bloggers to depend on for their science.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



If you're so concrete in your beliefs and your so sure I'm 'wrong,' why is it that you've shifted _*the entire focus of the thread*_ to your percieved TOS violation, rather than addressing what the post said?

If there's some sort of worldwide 'debate' going on, why is it that there's only a percentage of one political party on the face of the earth on your 'side' of the 'debate?'



Hmmm?










Exactly.

If I were you I'd want to shift the focus, too.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

I gave you a chance to save yourself publicly.  You refused.  It's in the mods hands, I'm fine with continuing to let you twist in the breeze on the failure of AGW to make it to fact rather than religion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Of course, those that actually research the subject can find real reports on the comparative cost on doing nothing, or addressing the increasing amounts of GHGs put into atmosphere.

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - HM Treasury


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Oh Fritzy, poor baby. His littly feminine feelings are hurt. Quick, someone give him something pink to make it all better.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

*I think that the scientists at MIT have a far better grip on what is occuring concerning the increasing temperatures than the knownothing 'Consevatives' on this board.*

M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C | ThinkProgress

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, &#8220;Hadley Center: &#8220;Catastrophic&#8221; 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path&#8221; and below).

The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, &#8220;Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters,&#8221; by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their model&#8217;s 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:

The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model&#8217;s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Oops.  I used the wrong term.  I meant MYTH, not religion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Naw, what you 'meant' was that you are too fucking stupid to know what you mean. All you are capable of, Fritzy, old boy, is repeating talking points with zero understanding of the subject. And posting your ignorance for the whole world to see.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Oops.  I used the wrong term.  I meant MYTH, not religion.



Why is it a 'myth' that the whole world believes, except for a portion of a single political party; Which also happens to be the political party that most advocates for carbon-producing industries?  

Tell us, how deep does the conspiracy go?


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oops.  I used the wrong term.  I meant MYTH, not religion.
> ...


So... still believe the Earth is the center of the universe?  how about rotting meat spontaneously producing maggots?  Landbridges maybe?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2011)

Poor Fritzy, reduced to babbling again.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Yes, I agree that conservatives have always fought science, but those examples you provided are not helping your cause.

They're actually rather profoundly helping mine.

Now please, the question Mr. Fitz.  Your ropadope is over.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



LOL, you are a sock puppeteer everyone here who has seen your act knows it. Hence your anger just now... Called that one didn't I...

Whats wrong socko? Get busted for being a quote editing douchebag recently? I think you did before this one.

The most pathetic things I see on this board are people who lack the ability and courage to fight their own battles and resort to multiple identities, and cowardly douchebags who resort to editing quotes attributed to other posters on here. And those describe you completely don't they...


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh Fritzy, poor baby. His littly feminine feelings are hurt. Quick, someone give him something pink to make it all better.



I find the fact you are supporting the little idiots editing attributed quotes, not surprising at all. You have already shown yourself to be a fake and a sellout. This is just one less ethical hurdle for you isn't it...


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Wow... you ARE a moron.  I've given your red herring enough of my attention.

But since you cannot abide the OP's statement, maybe you can hide from it in another thread.  Nobody's forcing your arrogant quote altering ass to be here.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...





You got nothin!

Get over being all butthurt over the plain-daylight 'quote altering' and answer my question!

How deep does the conspiracy go Fitz?  How deep!?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Ok, Slack, I realize you're... 'differently abled,' so I try to be patient with you, but...

Not only am I not the person you're referring to, but I honestly, hand-to-god have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I gave you a chance to save yourself publicly.  You refused.  It's in the mods hands, I'm fine with continuing to let you twist in the breeze on the failure of AGW to make it to fact rather than religion.



I think I hear the mods giggling.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Time to make this entertaining for me again.






U cannawt defeet meh but u can bor meh.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Sure... It's okay eventually proxies will not hide you. 

I have little respect for pseudo-identities, and even less for a quote editor. Quote editing is lying two-fold. Lying about what a person said and using that lie to make a false statement or claim about that person or what they say or feel. Thats pathetic, and cowardly...


----------



## konradv (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Who are these pseudo-identities you're talking about.  I think it's just a convenient excuse to run away from a discussion.

As for the "editing", no one was fooled as to what was actually written by whom.  To be a "false statement" an actual attempt to deceive MUST be evident.  In that you and Fitz earn a BIG FAIL!!!


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Shall I gather then that you've no intention of answering?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Fitz is just trying to initiate a pissing contest.

Slack I think is just so stupid that he doesn't understand what's going on.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Why am I going to play with your red herring?

We've wasted 2 pages on your stupidity, and the OP remains untouched.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

konradv said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Quiet junior the adults are talking... Where's your Poo Poo guy at?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Soooooooo... Yes, that's a 'no?'

It's cool, as I said I wouldn't want to step in that beehive either...


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
> 
> The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?
> 
> Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers?  Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?


Here.  Since Konnie and Co. keep fleeing the OP, let's drag it back over to them.

Any new thoughts?  Old thoughts reheated, rewashed and restated?

Or are we just going to have to keep suffering through more of this from you:


----------



## Iridescence (Sep 27, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
> 
> The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?
> 
> Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers?  Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?


_*
I don't laugh, I listen and I cringe sometimes more than not. There are sometimes things revealed about the deeper sciences within what is dubbed as hype. We are not yet in a position as a nation to be rebellious enough to completely discredit global warming theories. We are not independent of the powers that be that require us to support keeping the global mean temp down and the fossil fuels sacred.*_


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
> ...



The powers that be? The UN? The only power the UN has is what we give it. Their troops are mostly ours, their weapons we supply most of, their offices are here. They are only as powerful and mighty as we allow them to be. This is politics hijacking science and it will not hold up if the people do not support it. That would be me, you and the rest of us all. Politicians are there by election, the UN appointees are there by appointment from those elected politicians. As those politicians go so go their appointees.

The fact is opinions and policies are changing globally and by the day on this and they will continue to do so as more people begin to ask questions rather than blindly follow. As the people in each government wise up, the politicians and their policies will be forced to change as well. The UN in theory should represent the consensus view of the world, if they do not subject themselves to that condition they are NOT a justified entity.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...











No, silly person, the only thing is certain is that it would be a tremendous waste of money.  THAT is certain.  76 trillion for possibly lowering the global temps by a degree is insane.  You experience degree swings of greater then 20 degrees on a daily basis.  How on earth can you think that a single degree is significant?  Do you even have a brain?


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





No, it's not dick head.  The rules are the rules for a reason.  Why is it you libs think you're above the law all the time?  What is it that makes you think the sun shines out your ass?

I am really curious.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap.
> 
> All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a danger to our society.
> 
> But, of course, Knownothings like Fritzy have drugged out radio jocks, with barely a high school education, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen bloggers to depend on for their science.







No, just exposing you for the arrogant law breaking elitist pricks you are


----------



## Iridescence (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



While the UN may represent a substantial filter, no, I was not referring to the UN directly.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...







Why bother.  You have proven yourself to be a prevaricator and an example of the typical hypocritical silly person you claim everyone else is.  You are a troll, have allways been a troll, and will allways be a troll.  Now kindly climb back under your bridge with georgephillip.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Awwww gosh Walleyes, you're gonna hurt my feelings.  You want that on your conscience? 

I guess you haven't the balls to answer the question either, eh?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate. 

Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





If this is such a certain science, there must must be some predictablity associated with it.

Can you produce a repeatedly accurate set of predictions from these, um, scientists?

Also, can you produce a firm statement from any of the experts that says that the cause of global warming is 100% anthropogenic and EXACTLY what the exact effect will be and when it will occur if we reduce the amount of CO2 by specified amounts?

The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!  This is pretty much the state of the "science" as it's been expressed on this board.  It would be nice to read something that is concrete, verifiable and provable.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





American Republicans, the scientists of CERN, those who collect data for NOAA, HADcrut, RSS and UAH and just about anyone else who demands to see actual proof and not just a re-run of the "The Blob".

Not the remake.  The one with Steve McQueen.

If the trend over the last 8 years is cooling, what does this tell us about CO2?  Is it out of work, too?  How in the world can we depend on anything if CO2 has stopped working?


----------



## code1211 (Sep 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *I think that the scientists at MIT have a far better grip on what is occuring concerning the increasing temperatures than the knownothing 'Consevatives' on this board.*
> 
> M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C | ThinkProgress
> 
> ...





M.I.T. produces a new and different prediction of the warming climate EVERY YEAR.

This reveals two things:

1.  They are saying that their previous predictions were wrong.
2.  They're most reliable prediction is that this prediction, by their own review next year, will be shown to be wrong soon.

If their understanding of the climate system was good, their methodology reliable and the science sound, the prediction would not change on an annual basis.

Their understanding is wanting, their methodology is suspect and the science is incapable of producing a reliable prediction.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 27, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.



The claim is that it would reduce warming by 1 degree.  Not a shred of evidence exists to prove that claim.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Oops.  I used the wrong term.  I meant MYTH, not religion.
> ...





Apparently deeper than you think.

Despite the continuous repetition of the same unfounded and unprovable opinions, the American public has decided that the snake oil just isn't worth the price they are asked to pay for it.

The New york Times ran a poll that just couldn't force the outcome they needed and then ran the results in the fashion that condemns the American Public as idiots ignoring the intelligent leaders of science.

We ain't all scientists, but we shore kin tell a pile o' BS from a Birthday Cake.

Americans Still Split on Global Warming, Poll Shows - NYTimes.com


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...






I don't feed trolls.  You have proven yourself a troll ergo I don't waste my time with you....troll.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...






No, they claim that MAYBE it will drop by a degree.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 27, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.

-Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.

-Looked up some of your acronyms and as yet found nothing which indicates any of them are climate change denial advocates.  In fact it appears NOAA is not even climate related, and not sure what you're referring to with UAH.

I'll always look at anything you've got to offer.  But so far nobody's offered anything except "U R A STOOOPID LIBTURD ITS A CONSPIRACY WWWOOOWOOOWOOO!"


----------



## wirebender (Sep 27, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.
> 
> -Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.


----------



## Big Fitz (Sep 27, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap.
> ...


I knew someone else would figure it out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.
> ...



Anyone else notice the distinct correlation to the DOW??


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Matthew said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



An anomaly is something out of a norm.

Anomaly | Define Anomaly at Dictionary.com 

a·nom·a·ly

1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.

2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.

3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

4. an incongruity or inconsistency.

5. Astronomy . a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.

6.* Meteorology . the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
*
7. Grammar . irregularity.

A Series of highs and lows make a deviation. An average would be somewhere in the middle of the deviations.

An anomaly is something out of the ordinary, as in anomalous readings and so on. Matt you really shouldn't laugh at someone else when you are this wrong about what you are making fun of..

I pointed out before why they (the IPCC, NOAA, etc.) continually post charts for anomalies and try and pass them off as something relevant to over all climate. Its a scam and advanced hucksterism. Anomalies charts  are simply that, anomalous readings that defy the norm or average for a given time and place. The NOAA particularly loves to post these charts, and they do so to keep the actual warming or cooling vague and frighten people into a false assumption. Also its hard to prove assumptions made from anomalies wrong or right for that matter. They do not represent an average either long or short term but rather   odd readings that do not follow an expected course or outcome.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2011)

gslack said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Asshole that is what I said. A anonamly is outside the norm +-. Don't you fucking know how to fucking read a post? Dumb fucker! Believe me, I know what a fucking anomaly is as I been watching them for 15 years of my life along with every tropical cyclone and tornadoe event...I think I'm going back to the weather boards as this place sucks horses dick.


----------



## gslack (Sep 27, 2011)

Matthew said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Don't call me asshole shithead, you fucked up not me...

your words, as they were written here..

*"Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale."*

An anomaly is not an average its the opposite of average. You can't say a series of highs and lows make up a + or - anomaly when an anomaly is the odd man out in an average. Its not logical nor is it accurate by any measure.

If you meant to say something else thats one thing but like it was written is asinine and nonsensical gibberish. The definitions are correct, check em I gave you the link and I think I cited em pretty well. 

You went from so-called passive temp monitoring to full blown warmer lately and you have the nerve to call me asshole? F U, you screwed up and either likened anomalies to average deviance from a norm, or worded it badly. It read like you were associating anomaly to deviance and thats what I responded to, especially after the way you were laughing.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


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






Well,  you know....it was pretty obvious  I guess that's why the "super duper smart" folks couldn't figure it out.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 27, 2011)

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly. 

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly. 

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is. 

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.


----------



## gslack (Sep 28, 2011)

Matthew said:


> If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.
> 
> Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).
> 
> ...



Matt I was reacting to what you wrote not what you felt or thought or meant to say. I am not a mind reader and the way you wrote it was giving the impression you had mixed anomalies with average deviance. Read it yourself and tell me its not different than what you are saying now...

Saying a series of highs and lows makes a + or - anomaly is not the same thing. An anomaly is outside an expected norm, and odd man out. taking a series of highs and lows you can get an average. anything outside that average would be an anomaly if it were not within the allowable natural deviance.

I still contend the manner they use anomaly charts is hucksterism, and the way they come to those anomalies is questionable at best. By the measure they use any deviance is an anomaly and thats misleading on a long term scale like overall climate. They post a chart of anomalies for a given season which is just colored dots on a map and make a claim the temps rose by such amount with small print stating anomalies for such season. When  I see these i think WTH? Odd temps in an average are simply that be they highs or lows they are odd and not within the average. What does that mean? Nothing in terms of a season or even a year or decade in regards to overall climate.

Its BS. its just more nonsense to distract people.. Next time word it better or explain it more in depth and People like myself won't be misled or come to the wrong conclusion. And do me a favor and mind the asshole, you are one of the few on here that shows some sense that I don't necessarily agree with. I respect you matt, i think you are smarter than this warmist BS but thats your decision. At least you aren't a fraud or a sellout like a few others. Lets try and keep civil with one another.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 28, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



In the warmists minds correlation = causation so it must be the Dow that warms and cools the earth.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 28, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





This link was posted earlier in this thread.  It shows graphs from HADCrut, RSS, UAH and NOAA that all reveal cooling between 2002 and 2010.

NOAA is not climate related?

My question:  If CO2 is the driver of warming and if the source of increased CO2 is mankind and if the reduction of CO2 from anthropogenic sources is the only way to reduce rising global temperaures, why are temperatures dropping in the face of increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources?

Another question:  If the temperature drops while CO2 rises, may we assume that CO2 is overpowered by other forcing agents and, if this is true, why the hysteria over CO2?

2011 August 09 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Organizations


----------



## code1211 (Sep 28, 2011)

Matthew said:


> If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.
> 
> Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).
> 
> ...





I am in exact agreement on that.  

I have heard that the temperature for a day is figured as the average between the recorded high and the recorded low for any given day.  Is that true?

As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day.  If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

You, obviously, are closer to this than I.  I have doubts and am a rank amateur.  It's nice to know that someone with a background also has doubts.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 28, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.
> ...





Yes it is true---

TEMPERATURE (F)
 YESTERDAY
  MAXIMUM         68    156 PM  95    2003  72     -4       84
  MINIMUM         52   1156 PM  37    1961  50      2       63
                                      1945 
  AVERAGE         60                        61     -1       74


When you avg the observed between the two(highs and lows) is 60f, but the avg is 61f over the temperature record for this date, so we're -1f below the avg(anomaly). 

This is for PDX.


[/quote]
As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day.  If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.


> Well, that isn't so. It may seem so at times as cloudy days(24 hour periods) have a cooler high as less solar energy makes it to the surface to warm them up, while the clouds act as a cap on long wave radiation escaping to space at night, which keeps them warm.
> 
> So a day lets say in Late nov around my area could have rain all day long and have a high of 48f with low 41f, but the night day could be a dry and sunny one of 45f for high and 32f for low. What you have here is little to no clouds at night and for my area a ridge often means a more northerly flow during the day that counters the extra solar energy making it into the system.
> 
> ...


----------



## code1211 (Sep 28, 2011)

Matthew said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day.  If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.


> Well, that isn't so. It may seem so at times as cloudy days(24 hour periods) have a cooler high as less solar energy makes it to the surface to warm them up, while the clouds act as a cap on long wave radiation escaping to space at night, which keeps them warm.
> 
> So a day lets say in Late nov around my area could have rain all day long and have a high of 48f with low 41f, but the night day could be a dry and sunny one of 45f for high and 32f for low. What you have here is little to no clouds at night and for my area a ridge often means a more northerly flow during the day that counters the extra solar energy making it into the system.
> 
> ...





Thank you.  

Do you do this stuff as a part of your profession or are you a very dedicated hobbyist?


----------



## Iridescence (Sep 28, 2011)

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.


----------



## konradv (Sep 29, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.



What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple?  If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal?  Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time.  That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.


----------



## code1211 (Sep 29, 2011)

konradv said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.
> ...





The thing about logic is that it depends on knowing enough to figure something out.  Logic told us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that CO2 caused global warming.

Logic proved that God exists if you're Thomas Aquinas and that He does not if you're David Hume.

Logic is a wonderful tool and should be used wisely.

Ironclad logic really depends on one's point of view, biases and pardigms.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 29, 2011)

konradv said:


> What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple?  If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal?  Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time.  That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.



Can you prove that CO2 causes the earth to be warmer?  If you can, it would be a first.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 29, 2011)

wirebender said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple?  If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal?  Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time.  That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.
> ...



Can you prove that the slow decrease in tsi since 1950 caused the warming of the earth since then?

Thanks


----------



## westwall (Sep 29, 2011)

Matthew said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...







No.  We can't, but you don't see us saying "the logic is incontrovertible, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron" either.  Do you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2011)

I will again be looking for you to present your case to the upcoming AGU Conferance. I assume you have presented your paper to the committee already. After all, one of your standing, a member of the AGU and Fellow of the Royal Society should be able to set the record straight. You will make a presentation, correct, Westwall?


----------



## gslack (Sep 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> I will again be looking for you to present your case to the upcoming AGU Conferance. I assume you have presented your paper to the committee already. After all, one of your standing, a member of the AGU and Fellow of the Royal Society should be able to set the record straight. You will make a presentation, correct, Westwall?



Sure ya will socks, you will be monitoring the eco-blogs with trepidation..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 30, 2011)

A23A

C24A

Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.


----------



## konradv (Sep 30, 2011)

code1211 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



It's not good enough to just say that sometimes logic can be flawed.  That's really a nothing statement.  To have it mean anything, you have to point out the flaw.  Simply dismissing it for the reasons you cited is a logical flaw in itself, since one instance has nothing to do with the other, except as an opportuniy for "guilt by association".

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wirebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Can you prove that the slow decrease in tsi since 1950 caused the warming of the earth since then?
> 
> Thanks





Nope.  But then I never claimed that it was.  My claims all fall into the category of what isn't causing warming and I have the laws of physics to back me up.  I don't claim to be smart enough to know what thing, or random combination, or cyclical combination of things trigger and cause the earth's cycles to begin or end.

I am smart enough, however to weigh the claimed causes against the laws of physics and know whether I am being played for a fool or not.  

Anyone claiming that a rise in a trace atmospheric gas can drive the climate of the entire planet is playing people for fools.

Anyone who buys the claim has been played.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A23A
> 
> C24A
> 
> Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.



Real hucksterism from mediocre confidence men.


----------



## wirebender (Sep 30, 2011)

konradv said:


> It's not good enough to just say that sometimes logic can be flawed.  That's really a nothing statement.  To have it mean anything, *you have to point out the flaw*.  Simply dismissing it for the reasons you cited is a logical flaw in itself, since one instance has nothing to do with the other, except as an opportuniy for "guilt by association".



The flaws are legion.  The foundational flaw is that the model upon which the energy budget of climate pseudoscience is based does not represent reality.  The model is based on a flat earth that is radiated to the level of a sort of twilight 24 hours a day.  The secondary flaw is that the energy transfers in this model that doesn't represent reality violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

The fact that they have been able to get away with it for so long is testament to the level of dumbing down that has happened within our educational system.


----------



## gslack (Sep 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A23A
> 
> C24A
> 
> Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.



And you understand none of it anyway.. Care to tell me what part you play in that science there MENSA boy? LOL


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2011)

konradv said:


> 1melissa3 said:
> 
> 
> > After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.
> ...



When did anyone prove that CO2 made the earth warmer?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 30, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> A23A
> 
> C24A
> 
> Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.



Penn State is the disgraced university where Michael Mann conjured up his Hockey Stick fraud.  

Is that your conception of a "real scientist?"


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 30, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > 1melissa3 said:
> ...



It feeds plants=more plants=transpiration

The act or process of transpiring, especially through the stomata of plant tissue or the pores of the skin.

"Transpiration means to perspire and is common within plants. This is loss of water vapor through leaves and/or stems. Most transpiration occurs through the stomata. Why do plants lose such large quantities of water to transpiration? Do you know the answer?

To answer this question, let us look again at the function of the leaf. The chief function of the leaf is for photosynthesis, which is the source of all food for the entire plant body. The necessary energy for photosynthesis comes from sunlight. Therefore, for a maximum amount of photosynthesis to occur, a plant must have a maximum amount of surface area able to reach the sunlight.
."

Lecture 3: Transpiration

wirebender will agree that water vapor is the one gas that does hold some energy within the climate system. So in this way a increase of co2 would in fact=warmer earth!


----------



## code1211 (Sep 30, 2011)

konradv said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...





Please, then, use logic to explain how the warming caused by the increase orf CO2 resulting from the Industrial Revolution started 50 years before the Industrial Revolution.

Please include in your logical explantion how the future can cause the past.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 30, 2011)

Solar tsi after about 1720 started increasing=warming temperature on earth...This caused a increase of natural co2 of around 3-4 ppm between the peak of the little ice age to 1880.  Yes, before the little ice age it was 3-4 ppm higher...So between temperature of -1.6c cooler then today and temperatures like today comes with a "outgassing" or absorbing of the oceans of a few ppm of co2. 

As far as I know the co2 during the Holocene optimum wasn't more then 280ppm...Falling into the 270's during the little ice age.  YES, the sun caused the med evil, little ice age and a large part of the current one.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2011)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...






Well done!  Logical, reasoned, supported by actual facts.  Now how to measure the increase.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Solar tsi after about 1720 started increasing=warming temperature on earth...This caused a increase of natural co2 of around 3-4 ppm between the peak of the little ice age to 1880.  Yes, before the little ice age it was 3-4 ppm higher...So between temperature of -1.6c cooler then today and temperatures like today comes with a "outgassing" or absorbing of the oceans of a few ppm of co2.
> 
> As far as I know the co2 during the Holocene optimum wasn't more then 280ppm...Falling into the 270's during the little ice age.  YES, the sun caused the med evil, little ice age and a large part of the current one.







Better watch out Matthew.  That's blasphemous talk there my boy!


----------



## wirebender (Oct 1, 2011)

Matthew said:


> wirebender will agree that water vapor is the one gas that does hold some energy within the climate system. So in this way a increase of co2 would in fact=warmer earth!


 
Given a choice though, I would prefer the planetary flora to be as healthy and thriving as possible.  How about you?  Keep in mind though, that you are still talkling about water vapor and increased water vapor in the atmosphere induces more negative feedbacks as well.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...

The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.

The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998. 

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

*Memo*

Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan

As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday. 

*Global Climate Science Communications*

*Action Plan*

*Project Goal*

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

*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.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...
> 
> The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.
> 
> ...





From you link to illustrate why the group put this plan forth:

"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns."

They were in the 90's and are now, probably, concerned that the lion's share of the media coverage covers the parts of the story that fit the "If it bleeds it leads" tendencies of the mindless stenographers of the Fourth Estate. 

Warmers wail about the "Predicted Ice Age" of the 70's media coverage, but that is exactly the approach of this century's media citing the sensationally imagined results of global warming and ignoring the evidence that these results simply are not happening.  People don't care if it's warmer in Minneapolis.  They kind of appreciate the change.

They are terrified that the world might end and that is the prediction put forth by warmers.  Movies are made and the gullible quake with fear then swell with pride that they are on the right side of history.

The plan you condemn is a plan to publish truth.  Liberals should fear this while thinking Americans should give thanks.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...
> ...



It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

 Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 1, 2011)

Obama's EPA = "absurdism"...........RealClearEnergy | O's EPA is Anything But Reasonable


But not for looooooooooooong. Only about 12 months more of this BS!!!


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SW2SILVER said:
> ...


The bolded statement is wrong.

Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal

The carbon dioxide emission factors in this article are expressed in terms of the energy content of coal as pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu. Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms during coal combustion when one atom of carbon (C) unites with two atoms of oxygen (O) from the air. Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide. For example, coal with a carbon content of 78 percent and a heating value of 14,000 Btu per pound emits about 204.3 pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu when completely burned.(5) *Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.*​


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


So we should cripple the economies of the Western world and legislate against the use of most of the energy we need when there are no alternatives that are feasible, economical, and scalable "just in case"?

Sorry.  Need more than that.  You go live in a tent with no electricity if you want, but don't pretend you have the moral authority to demand I do to satisfy your wishful thinking.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


So, world socialism is the only thing that can save us?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Obama's EPA = "absurdism"...........RealClearEnergy | O's EPA is Anything But Reasonable
> 
> 
> But not for looooooooooooong. Only about 12 months more of this BS!!!



This is not 'O's EPA...
This is not even the EPA...
This is the Supreme Court...
This is 'State's rights'...

Unless Obama was president from 2003 to 2007...

EPAs Not Seeking 230,000 New Bureaucrats

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Ah, the polarized argument. ALL or NONE, BLACK or WHITE...

Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.


----------



## asterism (Oct 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature
> 
> Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
> Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5
> ...



What was the source of that increased CO2 concentration?


----------



## asterism (Oct 1, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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



The chart shows an increase in temperature followed by an increase in CO2, then a decrease in temperature followed by a decrease in CO2.


----------



## asterism (Oct 1, 2011)

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming
> ...



You're trying to recreate the premise of the non peer-reviewed Oreskes study (btw, why does one have to be a Climatologist to speak with authority about climate but no statistics credentials are required to speak with authority on statistical methods?), and one flaw is that you are lumping those papers that accept AGW as a given with those that argue in favor of it.

Also as demonstrated in the Climategate leaked emails, there was both an effort by Briffa and Jones to lay claim to being the authority on Climate Change for prestige as well as an active attempt to stifle dissenting research.  

Lastly, where is the raw data?  

Lost.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument.  The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument.  The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect.  Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


To you, yes.  Leftism is based solely on emotion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."
> ...



However, that is the logical extension of what you wrote.  No way around it.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



See?  Emotionalism.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Emotionalism? Oh that's right, pollution doesn't harm human beings, I forgot...


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Emotionalism?  

Well yes it's going tend to be an emotional argument. The possibility; probability even; that we're behaving in a fashion that could irreversibly reduce the QOL of the entire globe, coupled with a small fringe movement that says its all bullshit which is having undue influence on the discussion at large.

Who knew that was a liberal 'hot-button' issue.

Please refer back to my eating steak-dick falling off post.  



> Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.



It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud.  It's 97% of climatologists.  

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're _wrong._  You just have a narrow body saying they're _not sure _if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.
> ...



I believe you have hit the nail on the head. climate science doesnt work with competent statisticians who would point out their erroneous methodologies and inflated certainties concerning their papers but especially their conclusions drawn from said incorrectly done papers.


----------



## Cuyo (Oct 1, 2011)

IanC said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I'm... Not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting that a statistician's opinion would supersede that of a climatologist?  Because I'm rather certain that 100% of statisticians would find the correlations... And I'm also rather certain that most would agree a statistician is unqualified to determine whether or not a paper was done correctly.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



expert statisticians are capable of showing whether methodologies are correct, or applicable to the situation. there are example of statisticians  pointing out major flaws in climate science papers rendering them useless. the Hockey Stick graph being the most famous.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine.  It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it.  Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

On one of the Sunday talk shows probably 10 years ago, one of the panelists stated that 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years was not cause for panic but was, rather, a record of astonishing stability.  That made me think.  Anyone thinking is the enemy of a zealot.

If there is a well funded anti science anything that is putting forth a propaganda program, it must be so subtle as to be unnoticable.  Care to provide an example?

As far as the threat of the EPA not doing anything and being toothless due to Bush, will you never tire of this tired and pointless blame Bush routine.  Please give examples of what you are talking about.  An example from Indiana would be a good one so I could check it out.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.
> ...





And yet, with all of those experts saying what the cause is and knowing for certain what the cause is and citing the cause and blaming the cause and predicting outcomes based on the cause, all of the predictions are wrong.

Are these folks really experts?  is the cause really the cause?  Are the predictions really accurate?  Is reality wrong since it won't conform to the predictions?

How many times do these jokers need to be wrong before you start to ask if they know what they're talking about?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




Not to put too fine a point on this, but what would NOAA say?


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


CO2 isn't a pollutant, dork.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Poor analogy.  The AGW cult is claiming steak eaters' dicks are falling off, even though there is no concrete evidence for it.  Actually, the evidence is showing that steak eaters' dicks are getting bigger.  

The only "evidence" you have are models written by people with no experience in statistics, cherry-picked data, and outright lies.

That's simply not enough to make it imperative that we cripple the economy.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.
> ...


Climate models rely heavily on statistics.

Can you point to any statisticians working for climate scientists?


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

code1211 said:


> For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine.  It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it.  Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.


Same same.  I don't question AGW because I pay attention to the BIGOIL boogeyman -- I question AGW because AGW proponents have failed to make their case convincingly, because they're not embracing the open and questioning nature of science, and because they're driven more by a political agenda than they are by science itself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2011)

The Warmers still cannot point to one single laboratory experiment that even comes close to demonstrating their central thesis: that a wisp of CO2 will melt the glacier and turn the oceans acidic


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Title: THE "ECHO CHAMBER" APPROACH TO ADVOCACY
Organization Author: PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC 

The Kochs' Climate Change Denial Media Machine

Buying a Movement

Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Bush's sorry environmental record

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment 2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in 2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...













Shill


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.



You mean like the IPCC?


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.
> ...


That and the million-plus Hansen's made in violation of Federal ethics rules.  

But, hey, extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice, or something like that.

Right, USMB lefties?


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

the people who think the antialarmist sceptics are antiscience havent actually examined the the peer reviewed papers or informational blogs of the promenent leaders. of course it is only possible to prove something is wrong and impossible to prove something is 'incontrovertable' but the sceptics have repeatedly shown serious mistakes in published climate science that is used to make public policy. anyone who is interested in following the climate change debate should at least read Real Climate and Climate Audit. they both have input from scientists on both sides of the fence. I also like Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That for day-to-day topical stories, Climate Etc for the lukewarmer's position and SkepticalScience for the pro-CAGW position. once you listen to the many sides of the issues you will no longer believe it is as simple as believing one side or the other


----------



## IndependntLogic (Oct 1, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
> 
> The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?
> 
> Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers?  Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?



This is an area in which I have no problem confessing my ignorance on a subject. As far as I know, it's still referred to as a theory but I'm sure many feel more strongly about it. The scientific community seems to overwhelmingly agree it is a valid theory. I know lots of scientists because of my work and I haven't met one who doesn't seem sure of it. But here's where I get my biggest doubt: remember that volcano in Iceland? MSNBC was covering it and they said it caused more CO2 in a week than every car in South America would create in a year. Hmmm. 
I just don't know.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

IndependntLogic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
> ...



there is no doubt that CO2 does cause some change, how could it not? whether it is a trivial, substantial or overwhelming factor is a different question. denying catastropic climate change is also difficult if there is even a trivial chance that it might happen. it is easier and more conducive to a scientific career to not make waves over an issue that may not help you but can certainly cause harm to your career.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.



If AGW wasn't happening, would climatologists be selling shoes, or still working at their profession?

These scientists are not getting rich.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.
> ...



there certainly wouldnt be as many positions available in AGW fields. I dont know many people that would produce results that would make their job redundant either.


----------



## gslack (Oct 1, 2011)

Glad to see oldsocks brought back bfgrn... Another PR troll with nothing but an agenda and a willingness to cry...


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...








I suggest you look at the history of MTBE sometime.  We warned everybody that it was a terrible thing to put in the gasoline and yet you guys were the "experts" and rammed it down the throats of of the Californians.  

The result?  Poisoned water wells all over the state that will not be useable for at least 100 years.  WE were correct.  Not you.  If you had listened to us billions of dollars would not have been wasted, and lost because you idiots couldn't be bothered to do proper science.

YOUR TRACK RECORD AS REGARDS SCIENCE IS ONE OF ABJECT AND TOTAL FAILURE.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.
> ...







Here's a report from the EPA saying that their own study was flawed.  This is the type of study that your group is using.  And you wish to use known bad scientific studies as the basis for regulations.  That's like using a study that says smoking is actually good for you for your arguments to mandate that people have to smoke.

Get it?


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.
> ...







Actually some of them are.  mann, Jones, Hansen et all have made millions off of the fraud.  I havn't.  I havn't made one thin dime from big oil.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 1, 2011)

The problem with warmists is that they need continual lies to support their claims.  Like mapmakers who had maps reflect loss of ice mass in Greenland when it wasn't true.

Mapmakers' claim on shape of Greenland suddenly melts away - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

According to promotional material for the 13th edition of the atlas, this provides "concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet for ever  and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate." 

However, scientists at the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, which investigates climate change in the Arctic and is headed by the revered glaciologist Julian Dowdeswell, have asserted that the publisher's claims are flawed. 

"Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands," the Institute said in a letter to Harper Collins, made public yesterday.

"We do not know why this error has occurred, but it is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world... There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature."

The arrogance of the warmists is that they expect their falsities to be accepted as truth.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





You're kidding, right?  Links to political propaganda sites and then an article that works EXACTLY the same way as the Global Warming scam:  

Mention something, anything, it doesn'nt matter what, then mention the target of the smear, then detail a laundry list of terrible hazards that could happen, but in the real world have not happened.

You are holding an empty basket.  What did you imagine might be inside of it?


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how the AGW cultists screech "Follow the money!!"...until you point out all the money to be had in promoting AGW.
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## daveman (Oct 1, 2011)

westwall said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


None of that matters.  They meant well, so they're blameless.  

Right, bfgrn, Roxy?


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2011)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The problem with warmists is that they need continual lies to support their claims.  Like mapmakers who had maps reflect loss of ice mass in Greenland when it wasn't true.
> 
> Mapmakers' claim on shape of Greenland suddenly melts away - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
> 
> ...



they are learning though. it took quite a while to admit to Himalayagate but they acted quickly in this case, although they were not first to notice


----------



## SW2SILVER (Oct 1, 2011)

Einstein may have been wrong about the absolute speed of light, maybe not.  About the arrogance of  "Warmers"...I am 53 years old. I have experienced climate change in the last 20 years, and it has been getting drier and WARMER. That is a fact, for me. Call me a &#8220;Warmer&#8221;, then. Some of you wags believe the SUN is causing this, and YOU folks are using the same "science"   to support that hypothesis others use to support global warming or the absolute speed of light.  Then, you guys question science. That shows me how concerned some of you folks are with "Science", facts or the truth. Arrogance of "Warmers" my sweet bippy. Anyone here is arrogant if they think they know exactly what is causing this WARMING, and that includes all you that appose the human caused hypothesis.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 2, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Einstein may have been wrong about the absolute speed of light, maybe not.  About the arrogance of  "Warmers"...I am 53 years old. I have experienced climate change in the last 20 years, and it has been getting drier and WARMER. That is a fact, for me. Call me a Warmer, then. Some of you wags believe the SUN is causing this, and YOU folks are using the same "science"   to support that hypothesis others use to support global warming or the absolute speed of light.  Then, you guys question science. That shows me how concerned some of you folks are with "Science", facts or the truth. Arrogance of "Warmers" my sweet bippy. Anyone here is arrogant if they think they know exactly what is causing this WARMING, and that includes all you that appose the human caused hypothesis.





And so you are now branded a Denialist.  See how that works?  You did not wholeheartedly and with no reservations proclaim that CO2 is the one and only cause of Global Warming.

By allowing the possiblity that there are other causes or even one other cause, like the Sun perhaps, you disallow the certainty that reducing CO2 will solve the problem.  If reducing CO2 is reduced to a 3% posibility of addressing the problem, what's the use?

Simply saying that the conditions of weather are changing does not make you a Warmer.  Assigning the cause as CO2 and recomending a drastic change to the way of life of everyone on the planet is what makes you a warmer.  The warming movement has little to do with science and much to do with controlling activities through governmental overreach and redistributing money.

That is why the main driver of the debate is a political organization, the IPCC.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Einstein may have been wrong about the absolute speed of light, maybe not.  About the arrogance of  "Warmers"...I am 53 years old. I have experienced climate change in the last 20 years, and it has been getting drier and WARMER. That is a fact, for me. Call me a Warmer, then. Some of you wags believe the SUN is causing this, and YOU folks are using the same "science"   to support that hypothesis others use to support global warming or the absolute speed of light.  Then, you guys question science. That shows me how concerned some of you folks are with "Science", facts or the truth. Arrogance of "Warmers" my sweet bippy. Anyone here is arrogant if they think they know exactly what is causing this WARMING, and that includes all you that appose the human caused hypothesis.








Wow, compared to the 4.5 billion year history of the planet your 53 years upon it is so much more important.  Pretty arrogant don't you think?   Here's a clue.  The MWP lasted hundreds of years, the Little Ice Age lasted hundreds of years (and we're STILL warming up from that EVEN though it ended in 1850), I hope you've noticed something there....it takes HUNDREDS of years for things to happen on the planet...not your measly 53 years.

Arrogance personified.  Thank you for making our point so eloquently.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 2, 2011)

SW2SILVER said:


> Some of you wags believe the SUN is causing this,



The fact that damned near every planet in the solar system is experiencing climate change should give you a clue.  Unless of course, you believe SUVs are operating on other planets than earth.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 2, 2011)

Why yes, Uranus is getting colder.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 2, 2011)

Then there is the matter of measured TSI. But that is science, and an anthema to Walleyes.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 2, 2011)

Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 3, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Then there is the matter of measured TSI. But that is science, and an anthema to Walleyes.



TSI is not the end all and be all where the sun is concerned rocks.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 3, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.



Looking back over paleohistory, life exploded during warm periods; not during cool periods as we are presently experiencing.  Warm favors life, not cool.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.
> ...



Ah, the Western Fuels Association propaganda.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 3, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



So in which period in paleohistory except for a very short period between the perminan and triassic periods did a warm climate not equal an explosion in life on earth? And can you offer up a shred of evidence that proves that the present climate is ideal for life on earth?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



The PermianTriassic (PTr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was not 'brief' for almost all life on this planet. It was ETERNAL.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 3, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The PermianTriassic (PTr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was not 'brief' for almost all life on this planet. It was ETERNAL.



No actual answer I see.  Not surprising.  When propagandists are asked penetrating questions, they generally result to quips.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The PermianTriassic (PTr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was not 'brief' for almost all life on this planet. It was ETERNAL.
> ...



It is not a quip, it is stark reality. The earth is not going anywhere, it will survive. But human beings are not inert pieces of rock, they are fragile life forms that can only survive within a 'brief' window of temperature.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Ah, the Western Fuels Association propaganda.





is winning s0n!!!!!


----------



## konradv (Oct 3, 2011)

wirebender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.
> ...



It's human life and civilization that's the concern.  Paleohistory is of little importance in that case, since human civilization flourished during cooler times.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.



the first ten years of the new century.





it is quite a leap of faith to find basically all of those 5K in the next 9 decades isnt it?

or are we just playing a 'what if' game?

hey Matthew, you like making graphs. why dont you make one for 1901-2100 with real temps to 2011 and a line from now to 2100 showing a 5K increase?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 3, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the Western Fuels Association propaganda.
> ...



Parrots like you are proof...






Poly says:

This is who we should listen to on climate change.








And this is who we should trust with our environment.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.






I do for one.  Historically speaking all life has done *much* better when it has been warmer.  RWP, MWP, Holocene Thermal Maximum, PETM, whenever you look at either the historical, paleo or fossil record whenever it has been warmer it has been MUCH better for almost all life on Earth.


----------



## IanC (Oct 3, 2011)

five degrees is a lot. there would be numerous areas that would need to be adapted to but in the long run a 5 degree increase could quite possibly be a boon to mankind. who knows?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 5, 2011)

Matthew said:


> Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.





When was the last time it was that warm?

Why was it that warm?

What caused it to cool after it became that warm?

Questions like the one above imply that this is a sure thing when it's not.  Imply that it's never happened before and it has.  Imply that it will only continue to warm although it never has.  Preceeding and following every warming has been a cooling.  Every time.  No exceptions.  No deviation from pattern.

One might suppose based on the global history that there is a self regulator in the eco system that controls climate that has absolutely nothing to do with mankind.

Another might suppose that 200 years of mankind burning oil will overcome 4 and a half billion years of planetary development.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 5, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> wirebender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...





So now truth is propaganda?  Interesting.  What is your counter thesis to this?  That Ice Ages are good for life?  I grew up in Northern Minnesota.  I have moved south to tell you, cold is not good for life.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 5, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > wirebender said:
> ...



Greening Earth Society has been called a "front group created by the coal industry" and an "industry front". Fred Palmer, a Society staffer, is a registered lobbyist for Peabody Energy, a coal company.

Greening Earth Society 333 John Carlyle Street, Suite 530 Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-684-4748
Fax: 703-684-6297

A project of the Western Fuels Association founded to promote the idea that global warming is beneficial to the planet.

A 1988 report by the Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research showed how "Greening Earth Society and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization." Both are located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. They share the same leader, Fred Palmer, several WFA board members serve as the board for GES, and they have the same "manager of communications and governmental affairs," Ned Leonard. Leonard and Palmer are both registered lobbyists for Western Fuels Association. (clearproject.org - clear project Resources and Information. This website is for sale!) GES regularly publishes articles by prominant global warming skeptics.


----------



## westwall (Oct 5, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...






I tell you what.  Don't read anything from anybody on either side of the issue.  Instead just read some ancient history and see what you find.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 5, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Who here thinks that it would be a good thing if it warmed 5c in 89 years in the earth's mean temperature.
> ...


 About 15-20 million years ago. 





> Why was it that warm?


 Hansen and crew believe because of the higher co2.  They claim that the planet cool from 100 million years until the current ice age, because of lessing of the percentage of co2 within the Atmosphere. This means when we were around 4-5,000 thousand ppm around 100 million years ago; that was why we were 12-14c warmer then today even through the sun was a younger weaker star...At least believed by james E hansen....> Rock weathering they note absorbed the co2...Most likely the indian sub continent crashing into into the asia. 


> What caused it to cool after it became that warm?
> 
> Questions like the one above imply that this is a sure thing when it's not.  Imply that it's never happened before and it has.  Imply that it will only continue to warm although it never has.  Preceeding and following every warming has been a cooling.  Every time.  No exceptions.  No deviation from pattern.
> 
> ...




Over the longer term* you're right*. I'm not really sure myself what the heck is causing the current warming if it's not co2. The physics says co2 can't warm the earth, but there is nothing that sticks out and says this is what is causing it.


----------



## gslack (Oct 5, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Why not post a little more from that wikkipedia article you cited... Ah ok I will do it for you then...
_"Although the Greening Earth Society was generally skeptical of the impact of climate change, it acknowledged some degree of global warming as real: "Fact #1. The rate of global warming during the past several decades has been about 0.18°C per decade".[9] Note that the actual increase in the global surface temperature during the 100 years ending in 2005 was 0.74 ± 0.18 °C.[10]"_

Oh my see that? Amazing how a selective quote from the same source gives a completely different idea of what its about.... Thats PR 101, and its bullshit.. Ya know better bfgrn.. Around here we expect more than a propagandists flair. It has to have a little substance. See the trouble with cherry picking quotes is it can work both ways...

And how about that second link? Care to enlighten us as to who that links to? Of course you don't and I will again have to help you.. No need to thank me just doing what I do best...

We click on the link and BAM! Its says the following...

"clearproject.org
The domain clearproject.org may be for sale by its owner!"

... So for those who may not see this right away. Bfgrn here just used a dead website to try and counter a dead so-called PR firm... 

THis is how we can fight propaganda. They all too often employ lazy, incompetent weasels with no ethics like bfgrn here, to spam web forums or message boards with their nonsense, so all ya gotta do is take the time and check their facts or their sources. They may get lucky and cite a legit one from time to time, but usually they can't be bothered to check things like that, they have a spam quota to make...


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 5, 2011)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



But SOMEHOW the FACT this PR firm is run by polluters who make billions of dollars raping our planet goes unnoticed? Here is what you do, find one denier organization that is NOT funded by the biggest polluters on the planet. How stupid can you people be?


----------



## gslack (Oct 5, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So lets get this straight... You want me to go and do research that will prove your propaganda wrong even though your propaganda wasn't linked to anything but a dead website with nothing at all on it but a OOPS page? 

Why? Its not there anyway.. I know... Its wrong! there that did it..

Dude you are too ignorant to even look before you link to crap, no one needs to do any research to prove you are full of it. All anyone has to do is let you post and you will do it all on your own..

P.S. What PR firm? They are both gone.. YOur wikki link said its defunct now, and your other link to your PR firm is a dead website with an OOPS page... Damn man you aren't too bright are ya...


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 6, 2011)

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Gone but not forgotten. 






Non-Profit Organizations Receiving Corporate Funding 

GREENING EARTH SOCIETY

The Greening Earth Society was created by the Western Fuels Association and holds that industrial evolution is good, and using fossil fuels to enable economic activity is as desirable. GES promotes the benign effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the earths biosphere and humankind. The Society provides information about CO2 and fossil fuels to educators, students, business and media representatives, community leaders and policymakers. Information is provided to the public through the biweekly World Climate Report, the annual State of the Climate Report, the video The Greening of Planet Earth and The Greening of Planet Earth Continues and its website. (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/ 5/9/01)



In a policy briefing sponsored by the United States Energy Association, Fred Palmer, a coal industry lobbyist and notorious climate change denier, touted the wonders of "green coal" as a "path to zero emissions." 

Palmer has a solid history of undermining climate science on behalf of big polluters. He's the head of government affairs at Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company, and was formerly president of the Western Fuels Association and chairman of legal affairs for the National Mining Association. 

At the Western Fuels Association, Palmer headed the Greening Earth Society, which claimed that increased emissions would actually help ecosystems and economies. He even argued in an interview that "every time you turn your car on and you burn fossil fuels and you put CO2 into the air, youre doing the work of the Lord."




Hey...Maybe you can research if John F. Kennedy was real?


----------



## gslack (Oct 6, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Who said they weren't real at one time? I said they don't exist now... Get that? Now as in present tense... Do they exist now? No...

Now want to try and confront what I actually do imply rather than make up something you can attack? Pretty lame there bfgrn...


----------



## code1211 (Oct 6, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





I've been listening for your argument that global cooling is good for life.  A question in a comment above posed the possibility that it becomes 5 degrees warmer.  Let's turn that around.

Do you want a world that is 5 degrees cooler?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 6, 2011)

bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > bfgrn said:
> ...





cern.


http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/cern-the-sun-causes-global-warming/


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2011)

The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The physics of the situation state that it has to warm unless we get a cooling of the sun. Simple as that. Internal cycles, and adding aerosols to the atmosphere may delay the cooling, and create some cool years, but the oceans and atmosphere will warm as a result of this addition.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2011)

Cern proved nothing except how desperate you deniers are for any crumb of hope that AGW is not real.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Cern proved nothing except how desperate you deniers are for any crumb of hope that AGW is not real.



The Faith of the Warmers is unshakable.

Can you tell us the Warmer's Catechism?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> 
> The physics of the situation state that it has to warm unless we get a cooling of the sun. Simple as that. Internal cycles, and adding aerosols to the atmosphere may delay the cooling, and create some cool years, but the oceans and atmosphere will warm as a result of this addition.



So if we add 100ppm of CO2 to a flask in a lab we should see what a 2, 3 4 degree increase in temperature?


----------



## gslack (Oct 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years.* That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> 
> *The physics of the situation state that it has to warm unless we get a cooling of the sun. Simple as that.* Internal cycles, and adding aerosols to the atmosphere may delay the cooling, and create some cool years, but the oceans and atmosphere will warm as a result of this addition.



Socks seriously..... the last million years? You can say that with any real certainty? RIght... ANd I am the pope too... And physics? What you understand of the physics is less than that of your pal kornhole...


----------



## code1211 (Oct 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> 
> The physics of the situation state that it has to warm unless we get a cooling of the sun. Simple as that. Internal cycles, and adding aerosols to the atmosphere may delay the cooling, and create some cool years, but the oceans and atmosphere will warm as a result of this addition.






And yet for 10 years, it's been cooling.  Has physics been on vacation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> ...



It's been cooling because of Manmade Global Warming


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 7, 2011)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> ...



Hey simp, ever hear of the greenhouse effect?

greenhouse effect for kids


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Can you count to 100 yet?

I'm giving you a *GI-NORMOUS!!* increase in CO2 and you still can't show me one lab experiment at that number?

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> 
> The physics of the situation state that it has to warm unless we get a cooling of the sun. Simple as that. Internal cycles, and adding aerosols to the atmosphere may delay the cooling, and create some cool years, but the oceans and atmosphere will warm as a result of this addition.







Then why are the oceans and the atmosphere cooling?  We've added a whole bunch of CO2 and the temps today are basically the same as they were 100 years ago.  

*
FAIL*


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Here's a real quick physics lesson for you little one, those little "experiments" are not demonstrating the greenhouse gas effect, they are demonstrating the Ideal Gas Laws, but then, you'd have to have actually _*TAKEN*_ a physics class.  Something which none of you have ever done.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> ...



Is this what cooling looks like?

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2011: +0.29 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

From 2001 to today, the average has been below the zero line for only eight or nine months.  For at least 84 of the months of the last decade, the average has been higher than any previous high average except that of 1998. 

Code, you have resorted to outright lies. The last decade was the warmest on record. Until the next decade.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2011)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The fastest rate of change for CO2 in the last few millions of years is about 30 ppm in a thousand years. That is when the Milankovic Cycles warm the southern ocean and it emits CO2, starting the interglacial cycles. In just the last 17 years, we have added 30 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
> ...



Lordy, lordy, more outright lies.

Both the atmosphere and the oceans are warming. Real time observations by real scientists, not dumbkopf message board pretenders.

http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/documents/RoyceLam.pdf

Abstract
The Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity has received much attention
because of its obvious relevance and importance for global
warming policymaking. This paper focuses on the Earth's thermal
inertia time scale which has received relatively little attention. The
dierence between the observed transient climate sensitivity and the
equilibrium climate sensitivity is shown to be proportional to the thermal
inertia time scale, and the numerical value of the proportionality
factor is determined using recent observational data. Many useful
policymaking insights can be extracted from the resulting empirical
quantitative relation. For example, an equilibrium climate sensitivity
above 4:5C would imply a thermal inertia time scale of over 3
decades, and therefore a very sluggish response to any determined
mitigation eorts.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


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





I keep showing you data from 2011 to show you where you are wrong in all aspects of your assertions and you keep quoting a scientist who wrote an article in 1890 to prove that today's science is wrong and then call me a liar.  Your debating technique is weaker than your sources.

I'm really wondering how many sources I must link to that all show the same data sorted differently that all say the same thing before you understand what it's saying.  Also wondering if you are actually reading anything, anything, on this topic, how you can be missing this.  It seems to be everywhere.

I know it's not your fault.  I blame the drink.

Global Warming Skeptics - MUST READ: John O'Sullivan: Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming

"For instance, the shocking truth is that *all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 *while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history.

Indeed, so infuriated over the blatant lies is* Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever*, that last week he resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society for their part in sustaining the now utterly debunked AGW propaganda."


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2011)

LOL   Dr. Spencer wrote the UAH September Temperature update in 1890? 

And your article is an opinion peice, not an article written by a scientist. 

Once again, find one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states what that article is stating. You cannot, for the article is a complete peice of fabrication.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


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



WHO is John O'Sullivan and WHO is ClimateRealists.com?


----------



## code1211 (Oct 8, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL   Dr. Spencer wrote the UAH September Temperature update in 1890?
> 
> And your article is an opinion peice, not an article written by a scientist.
> 
> Once again, find one Scientific Society, one National Academy of Science, or even one major University that states what that article is stating. You cannot, for the article is a complete peice of fabrication.





Did you not see the data tracks from the graph in the piece?  All show a decline in the temperature for years.

Is ignoring the data the scientific method that best suits your goals?

This happens to be the link I picked this time.  I've posted the same data from different sources at least three times which all report the same results and still you attack the people who present the data.

You apparently follow a one eyed man recognizing him as king.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 8, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


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





Thanks for asking.  He's the guy who is exposing the scam that is the GHG AGW hysteria.

John O'Sullivan | Suite101.com

Science writer and legal advocate specializing in anti-corruption, John O'Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE, was born in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents in 1961. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit.

John is currently involved in litigation with prominent climatologists, Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Tim Ball.

In 2010 John OSullivan established himself as the world's most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory of climate change (Google). He coordinated and published the science book, 'Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, a two-volume best seller he co-wrote with 22 leading climate researchers.

O'Sullivan has published over 150 major articles worldwide. His 'Satellite-gate' revelations caused a $12 million dollar orbiting U.S. satellite to be hastily removed from service. In America his work features in the National Review, the nation's most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news and also Forbes Magazine. Other leading world publications that feature his work include China Daily, the Number One English portal in China and The India Times, the prime source of business news in India.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



So he is not a scientist or a climatologist. Thanks...


----------



## asterism (Oct 8, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



So?  Tim Osborn isn't a computer programmer and that doesn't stop any of the warmers from accepting his version of "climate modeling."


----------



## code1211 (Oct 8, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




You're welcome.  Did you review the chart he presented or the carts on the previous link I posted in this thread that shows exactly the same data from the same sources posted by a different person?

I will assume that the iron clad closure of your mind will prohibit that review from happening.


----------



## code1211 (Oct 8, 2011)

asterism said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





You don't really need to be a scientist or a climatologist to read a graph that shows declining temps for ten years.  Reading the same info from UAH, RSS, Hadcrut and NOAA might lead one to believe that the real scientists who do this for a living are collecting data that reveals cooling across ten years.

While they do compare data, one source to the next, the actual collection is done independantly.

Indepedant thinking seems to be a foreign concept to the lock steppers on the Warmer Bandwagon.


----------



## westwall (Oct 8, 2011)

Hell the climatologists they quote I wouldn't classify as scientists!  They certainly don't follow the scientific method.


----------



## TakePart (Oct 19, 2011)

You guys spend a lot of time speaking about the evidence for global warming and denying that evidence is true. OK fine, but where is the evidence for you claims? What is your evidence for Global Warming NOT happening? Please someone point this out to me!

--TakePart


----------



## wirebender (Oct 19, 2011)

TakePart said:


> You guys spend a lot of time speaking about the evidence for global warming and denying that evidence is true. OK fine, but where is the evidence for you claims? What is your evidence for Global Warming NOT happening? Please someone point this out to me!
> 
> --TakePart



The issue isn't whether or not the earth is warming or cooling because to some degree it is always doing one or the other.  The issue is whether or not man is causing the changes and to date, there is not one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2011)

TakePart said:


> You guys spend a lot of time speaking about the evidence for global warming and denying that evidence is true. OK fine, but where is the evidence for you claims? What is your evidence for Global Warming NOT happening? Please someone point this out to me!
> 
> --TakePart






There is plenty of evidence for global warming.  That has been occuring for the last 14,000 years, in other words since the last Ice Age.  There have also been many cycles within that 14,000 year period where the temperatures dropped and rose higher then the current day.  This is well documented.  

The claim made by the warmists is that the current warming is unprecedented.  This is false and is likewise well documented as false.  The Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period and the Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8,000 years ago are all times when the global temperatures were much greater then today.  

They happened absent human influence.  Thus the warmists are the ones who need to prove that the current warming cycle is caused by mankind.  They also need to follow the scientific method while doing so.   So far they have refused to do so and have also corrupted the peer review process at the same time.

That is unforgiveable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2011)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Of course the real scientists in the American Institute of Physics state differantly. But what the hell do Phd Physicists know about physics?


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> Of course the real scientists in the American Institute of Physics state differantly. But what the hell do Phd Physicists know about physics?



I want to know what you know about physics?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 20, 2011)

Enough to know Wirebender is full of shit, and that you are a complete ignoramous.


----------



## gslack (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Enough to know Wirebender is full of shit, and that you are a complete ignoramous.



Sure MENSA boy sure...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 20, 2011)

code1211 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Really?

UAH Global Temperature Update for September 2011: +0.29 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

According to the graph there, almost the whole time for the last decade, the running average has been above all the high points but the high point of 1998 of that average. 

So how do you get the cooling for the last decade? And have it at the same time the warmest decade in the last 180 years? Possibly the warmest decade in the last 2000 years? 

Come on now, I want to see the explanation of how the decade can be cooling and still be the warmest during the time that we have been recording temperatures.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



really Rocks? you cant figure out how it can be warmest now but still cooling?

most of the surface is water which take a lot of time to heat up or cool down. the 90's saw a lot of warming but since then there has been little or none. every year goes up or down compared to the previous year not compared to the average of the last 30 or 150 years. 1998 was the warmest year but it has cooled since then. to get back down to the average would be a huge loss of heat for one individual year. 

boil a pot of water then turn off the heat. the water is going to be 'above average' for a long time even though it is cooling. speaking of water, the sea level rise has deaccelerated for quite a few years now which is a pretty strong sign of cooling, especially if all that ice is melting as you say.


----------



## wirebender (Oct 24, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Enough to know Wirebender is full of shit, and that you are a complete ignoramous.



Really?  You weren't even able to comment on the very basic questions I asked you about some equations that you posted.  Clearly you don't even know enough about physics to understand the materials that you post, much less know whether those you believe on faith are telling you the truth or simply seeking more funding from people who also don't know, or don't care, whether they are telling the truth.


----------

