# The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

*The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change*

*Specifically, the consensus about anthropogenic climate change centers on the these points:*
1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability
2. The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
3. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels
4. If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue and the world's climate patterns will change drastically
5. A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment

*These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:*
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

*In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:*
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

*These organizations also agree with the consensus:*
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

*The following companies agree with the consensus:*
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo

*In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:*
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc


----------



## Mr. H. (May 24, 2010)

That's more endorsements than have Tiger Woods and Danica Patrick- combined!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> *The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change*
> 
> *Specifically, the consensus about anthropogenic climate change centers on the these points:*
> 1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability
> ...



Excellent.


----------



## westwall (May 24, 2010)

Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.


----------



## manifold (May 24, 2010)

So what are you doing about it besides spamming a messageboard?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

westwall said:


> Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.



What equals zero is the number of functioning brain cells in your little pinhead, walleyed.


----------



## fyrenza (May 24, 2010)

Hasn't the Big Fat Lie Of Global Warming been put paid to?

WTF?

The earth lives in CYCLES, too!    D.U.H.!!!!

Give it a rest, pal.

It's over.

If YOU want to support the liars, by all means, SEND BUX!

Just leave me WAY out of it!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 24, 2010)

I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.

But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.


----------



## Zander (May 25, 2010)

Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2010)

Zander said:


> Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".



You got that right. Science is about facts and data, and using methods to get to understand the nature of things. 

What global warmers love to do is consensus like it some how makes a lie any better or a idea that has no support better. Believe me it doesn't. In my post above shows that every time humanity explores it is for a reason, but believe me this global warming lie is not going to be that reason to finally get us to the stars.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

Zander said:


> Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".



LOL. You denier cultist are so funny with your silly straw-man arguments. 

Science is based on evidence, collected data, analysis, theorizing and testing. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change is the result of massive amounts of evidence and data supporting that theory. Nobody claimed that the consensus proves the science but it does reflect the best understanding of the subject by the world scientific community and this is a useful benchmark in science. This description from Wikipedia sums it up pretty good. 

_Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion  of the community of scientists  in a particular field of study. *Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.* Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. *Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.*[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that consensus has been reached to outsiders can be difficult. *On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community.* In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]_

To see the position statements issued by the world scientific institutes and societies, check this out.

*Scientific opinion on climate change*


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

Statistics are easily manipulated,

and if it PROFITS me?

I guess I like my STATS better than your facts.

How did science fall for the lie, though?  That THEY could dazzle everyone with their version of "derivatives?"

I shake my head, and sigh.

'Cuz NOW?  How do we find our way BACK to the Truth?

Yeah.  There IS a definite bottom line Truth to any given thing, but we're so far away from so much of it.



p.s.  Please see my post about Quotes And How To Shorten Them.  TOOLS, peeps!  It the only thing that separates us from the animals, ffs!


----------



## Zander (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
> ...



Some facts for you: Correlation does not equal Causation. Consensus is not SCIENCE.


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

And if I produce evidence to the contrary?

We'll pick each other's sources apart, and still be nowhere near to agreeing.

Oh.  Don't mistake me ~ the "sources" I could produce?  Are NO BETTER than whatever you have ~

it all comes down to what resonates as Truth within YOU.

I'm sorry, 'cuz this evidently really matters to you, but see?  That's usually the first clue that it something is Off ~ you have to prove it, again and again, and try to CONVINCE folks, but you never change anyone's mind, 'cuz there IS a bottom line truth.

I mean, really.  Think about it.  The earth changed, well before man made an appearance, so we weren't to blame for THAT, eh?

It's changed just since you've walked on it ~ did you know that the earthquake in Chili threw our planet TEN INCHES off orbit?

There is SO much more going on than we seem to be able to get a handle on, but we've been forced into these little specialty niches, where no one can see the Big Pic.  (wft is Asimov when we need him?  )

And this:  With the other things happening all around us, will it really matter whether we believe in Global Warming, or not?  We're about to get run over with a steamroller, and we're still worrying about whether we're keeping it between the lines...


----------



## Dr Grump (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Hasn't the Big Fat Lie Of Global Warming been put paid to?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> ...



When a conversation is beyond your mental capability, it's best just to move on....


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> When a conversation is beyond your mental capability, it's best just to move on....



Well.  If you MUST leave...

Not sure why you posted, though, ^that^ being the case.


----------



## pans trogladyta (May 25, 2010)

westwall said:


> Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.




Can't think of a rebuttal so you spew nonsense.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Well.  If you MUST leave...
> 
> Not sure why you posted, though, ^that^ being the case.




Your comebacks are worse than your posts...


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

And your grammar and spelling are atrocious!

Are we even, yet?



I'm teasing you, dude.  Relax.


----------



## pans trogladyta (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Statistics are easily manipulated,
> 
> and if it PROFITS me?
> 
> ...




I notice you present no facts to dispute rolling thunders list.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> We'll pick each other's sources apart, and still be nowhere near to agreeing.



On the contrary, that depends on the source....



fyrenza said:


> Are NO BETTER than whatever you have ~



Oh really? Then produce them......



fyrenza said:


> it all comes down to what resonates as Truth within YOU.



Nope, there are discernible facts, some half truths and outright lies...



fyrenza said:


> I'm sorry, 'cuz this evidently really matters to you, but see?  That's usually the first clue that it something is Off ~ you have to prove it, again and again, and try to CONVINCE folks, but you never change anyone's mind, 'cuz there IS a bottom line truth.



Well, some folks do like to wallow in ignorance, and that is on them.....




fyrenza said:


> I mean, really.  Think about it.  The earth changed, well before man made an appearance, so we weren't to blame for THAT, eh?



Oh, cool. So if I see a two year old sitting in the middle of the road and a car about half a click away heading straight for the child, even though I could rescue the kid, I'll just leave it there, because you, that's life? Great attitude!



fyrenza said:


> And this:  With the other things happening all around us, will it really matter whether we believe in Global Warming, or not?  We're about to get run over with a steamroller, and we're still worrying about whether we're keeping it between the lines...



Which steamroller is that?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> And your grammar and spelling are atrocious!
> 
> Are we even, yet?
> 
> ...



Apostrophe abuse certainly needs pointing out and dealt with accordingly...luckily there is an edit function....


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

I got a list too...

I got mine from Chicago Carbon Exchange website... You know them they are the company Al Gore and Maurice strong are invested in... Strong being the President and former head of the UN environmental program as well...

Partners in CCX...

affiliated carbon exchanges...

Chicago Climate Futures Exchange® (CCFE®)  
Envex 
European Climate Exchange® (ECX®)  
Montréal Climate Exchange&#8482; (MCeX&#8482 
MCeX Launch
Tianjin Climate Exchange (TCX) 
TCX Launch
In Development:

India Climate Exchange&#8482; (ICX&#8482: Developing the first pilot cap and trade program in India

Business partners and major corporate investors....

Aerospace & Equipment
Rolls-Royce
United Technologies Corporation 

Automotive
Ford Motor Company

Beverage Manufacturing
New Belgium Brewing Company

Chemicals
Dow Corning*
DuPont
FMC Corporation
Potash Corporation
Rhodia Energy Brasil Ltda
U.S. Salt, LLC

Coal Mining
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
PinnOak Resources LLC

Commercial Interiors
Knoll, Inc.
Steelcase Inc.

Counties
King County, Washington
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Sacramento County, California

Diversified Manufacturing
Eastman Kodak Company
Robert Bosch LLC

Electric Power Generation
AGL Hydro Partnership
Allegheny Energy Inc.
Alliant Energy Corporate Services
  Inc. 
American Electric Power
American Municipal Power
Associated Electric 
  Cooperative, Inc.
Avista Corporation
Central Vermont Public Service
CLECO Corporation
DTE Energy Inc
Duquesne Light Company*
Dynegy Holdings Inc.
Green Mountain Power
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric
  Cooperative, Inc.
Manitoba Hydro
Mirant Corporation
NRG Power Marketing Inc.
Progress Energy
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.*
PSEG
RRI Energy
TECO Energy, Inc.

Electronics
Motorola, Inc.
Sony Electronics Inc.
Square D/Schneider Electric N.A.*

Environmental Services
Atlantic County Utilities Authority
Lancaster County Solid Waste 
  Management Authority
Veolia Environmental Services 
  North America Corp.
Wasatch Integrated Waste 
  Management Authority
Waste Management,  Inc.

Ethanol Production
Corn Plus LLLP

Financial Institutions
Bank of America Corporation

Food and Agricultural Products & Services 
Agrium U.S. Inc.*
Cargill, Incorporated
Monsanto Company

Food Processing
Premium Standard Farms*
Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Forest Products 
AbitibiBowater
Aracruz Celulose S.A.*
Arcelor Mittal Florestas Ltda
Boise Paper Holdings, LLC
Cenibra Nipo Brasiliera S.A.*
Domtar Corporation
International Paper
Klabin S.A.*
Masisa S.A.
MeadWestvaco Corp.
Neenah Paper Incorporated
NewPage Corporation
Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.
Suzano Papel E Celulose SA
Tembec Industries Inc.
Temple-Inland Inc*

Healthcare
Baxter International Inc.
Hospira, Inc.

Manufacturing
Bayer Corporation
Duratex S.A.
Honeywell International Inc.
Interface, Inc.
Ozinga Bros., Inc.*
Smurfit-Stone

Municipalities
City of Aspen
City of Berkeley*
City of Boulder
City of Chicago
City of Fargo
City of Melbourne, Australia
City of Oakland*
City of Portland*

Petrochemicals
LANXESS Elastomeros do Brasil S.A.

Pharmaceuticals
Abbott

Real Estate Investment
JMB Realty Corporation

Recreation
Aspen Skiing Company

Retail
Safeway, Inc.

States
State of Illinois
State of New Mexico*

Steam Heat
Concord Steam Corporation

Steel
Roanoke Electric Steel Corp.*

Technology
Freescale Semiconductor
IBM
Intel Corporation
STMicroelectronics

Transportation
Amtrak
San Joaquin Regional Rail
  Commission*

University
Michigan State University
University of California, San Diego 
University of Idaho
University of Iowa
University of Minnesota
University of Oklahoma
Tufts University*




Offset Aggregators

33 Asset Management B.V.
3Degrees Group, Inc.
Ag Carbon Management, LLC (an
  Environmental Credit Corp 
  subsidiary)
AgraGate Climate Credits 
 Corporation
Agrinergy Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
Andhyodaya Green Energy 
  Technologies Pvt Ltd.
CantorCO2e, L.P.
Carbon Logic, LLC
Carbon Resource Management 
  Ltd.
Carbon-TF B.V.
CARBONyatra
Cargill - Green Hercules Trading
Cargill, Inc
C-Green Aggregator Ltd.
CP Holdings LLC
Dash Environmental LLC
Delta P2/E2 Center LLC
ecolutions GmbH & Co. KGaA
Ecoreturn LLP
Ecosecurities Capital Ltd.
Element Markets LLC
Emergent Ventures India PVT, LTD
Environmental Carbon Credit 
  Pool LLC
Environmental Credit Corp.
FC Stone, LLC
First Capitol Risk Management LLC
FORECON EcoMarket
  Solutions LLC
Forest Carbon, Inc.
Foretell Business Solutions 
  Private Limited
Geosyntec Consultants Inc
GI Power Corporation Limited
Grasim Industries, Ltd.
Greenoxx Global 
  Environmental Program
Grey K Trading Limited
GT Environmental Finance
Guizhou Zhongshui Hengyuan 
  Project Management & 
  Consulting Co. Ltd.
Hudson Technologies Company
Indo Gulf Fertilizers 
 (a unit of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.)
Indus Technical & Financial 
  Consultants, Ltd.
J. Aron & Company
Kentucky Corn Growers
  Association
Korea Energy Management
  Corporation
LandGas Technology LLC
MF Global Market Services LLC
MGM International
Mickelson & Company LLC
Microgy, Inc.
Mission Climate
Mountain Association for 
  Community Economic 
  Development
National Carbon Offset Coalition
Natural Capital
North Dakota Farmers Union 
ProLogis Logistics Services, Inc.
Rajasthan Renewable Energy 
  Corporation
Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama
Reclamation Technologies Inc
Reliance Energy Ltd.
Reliance Industries Limited
Rice Dairy LLC
Rolling Plains Crop Insurance 
  Agency,Inc.
R.S.J. Ozone Private Limited
Senergy Global Limited
SunOne Climate Solutions LLC
Tata Motors Limited
Tata Steel Limited
Tatanka Resources LLC
TerraCarbon LLC
TerraPass Inc.
The Verus Carbon Neutral 
  Partnership
U.S. Energy Services, Inc.
Valley Wood Inc.
Vayam Technologies Ltd
Vision CO2, S.A.
Xi'an Zhongyang Electric 
  Corporation

Offset Providers
Bajaj Finserv Limited 
Beijing Shenwu Thermal Energy 
  Trading Co. Ltd.
Burnett Ranches, LLC
Cape May County Municipal 
  Utilities Authority 
City of Gardner, Massachusetts
CNX Gas Corporation
CO2 Australia
CommonWealth Resource 
  Management Corp.
CPI Carbon Asset Management Co., Ltd.
Cumberland County Improvement 
  Authority
Dhariwal Industries Ltd.
Gazprom Marketing & Trading Ltd
Granger Holdings LLC
Lugar Stock Farm
Precious Woods Holding, Ltd
Public Utility District No 1 of 
  Chelan County, WA
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
Sexton Energy LLC
Tata Power Company Limited
TerraCarbon LLC
The Andhyodaya
Trading Emissions PLC
Vessels Coal Gas Inc.


Liquidity Providers
Akeida Environmental Master Fund
  Ltd.
Ameresco, Inc.
Amerex Energy
Apache CR Company
Atrium Carbon Fund LP
B of A Commodities Inc.
BNP Paribas Energy Trading GP
Brane Strom LLP
C-Quest Capital, LLC
CBp Carbon Industries, Inc.
Cargill Power Markets LLC
Chapel Street Environmental Fund,
  LP
CoolPass, Inc.
Digilog Global Environmental 
  Master Fund Ltd
DRW Holdings LLC
Evolution Markets LLC
First Bank and Trust
First New York Securities LLC
Five Rings Capital LLC
Galtere International Master 
  Fund LP
GDF SUEZ Energy Marketing NA
Grand Slam Trading Inc.
Green Dragon Fund
Green Fund Partners LLC 
Grey K Environmental Fund LP
Grey K Environmental 
  Offshore Fund Ltd.
Grey K Trading Limited
Haley Capital Management
ICAP Energy LLC
Infinium Capital Management  LLC
Integrys Energy Services Inc
Ironworks Partners LP
J. Aron & Company
Jane Street Global Trading  LLC
JP Morgan Ventures Energy
  Corporation
Kellybrooke LLC
Koch Supply & Trading
Kottke Associates, LLC
Lehman Brother Commodity
  Services Inc.
Marquette Partners, LP
Marsus Capital LLC
Matlock Research and 
  Investments
Newedge USA, LLC
Octavian Special Master Fund LP
Option Insight Partners
ORBEO
Penson GHCo
Peregrine Financial Group, Inc.
Rand Financial Services, Inc.
Royal Bank of Canada
SA Recovery, Inc.
Serrino Trading Company
Spectron Energy Services  Limited
Stark Investments
TEP Trading 2 Ltd.
The League Corporation
TradeLink LLC
Tradition Financial Services Ltd.
TransMarket Group LLC
Universal Carbon Fund LLC
U.S. Energy Savings Corp.
Vitol, Inc.

Architecture/Planning
Mithun, Inc.
Perkins + Will, Inc.

Consulting
DOMANI LLC
First Environment, Inc.
Global Change Associates*
Natural Capitalism Solutions
RenewSource Partners LLC*
Rocky Mountain Institute*

Consumer Products
Collective Wellbeing LLC 

Documentary Production
Cloverland Inc.*

Educational Institutions
Presidio School of Management*
Sidwell Friends School

Embassy
Embassy of Denmark, Washington
  D.C.
Embassy of Finland

Energy Broker
Amerex Energy*

Energy Services
Bell Independent Power Corp.
Orion Energy Systems Ltd.
Prenova, Inc.
Sieben Energy Associates
Thermal Energy International

Energy Supplier
BlueStar Energy Services Inc.
MXenergy Holdings Inc.

Engineering
Rumsey Engineers*
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Environmental Services
Resource Recycling Systems

Financial Services
Access Industries, Inc.*
G.C. Anderson Partners LLC
MB Investments LLC*
Wood Creek Capital Management
  LLC

Financing Agency
Ohio Air Quality Development 
 Authority*

Food Services
Big Bowl Asian, LLC

Foundation
Nathan Cummings Foundation

Green Power Marketer
Green Mountain Energy Company*

Information Technology
Open Finance LLC
Intercontinental Exchange*

Legal Services
Foley & Lardner LLP*
Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Non-Governmental Organization
ACORE*
Delta Institute
Houston Advanced Research
  Center*
Midwest Energy Efficiency 
  Alliance
Rainforest Alliance
World Resources Institute*

Professional Associations
Confederation of British Industry*
The Professional Risk Managers' 
  International Association*

Real Estate
ProLogis Logistics Services, Inc.

Religious Organizations
Jesuit Community of Santa Clara 
  University

Renewable Energy
Airtricity Inc.* 
American Renewable Energy*
Econergy International*
Reknewco Ltd.* 

Retiring/Offsets
4Offsets, LLC
Carbonfund.org 
Offset Collective, Inc.
TerraPass Inc.*

Social Investment
Generation Investment
  Management LLP
KLD Research & Analytics*
Pax World*

Technology
Millennium Cell*
Polar Technology, LLC

Transportation Services
Valera Global Inc.

Wonder how many on my list and trollingblunders list match? LOL


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

This so arrogant of me...


It's not worth my time, nor effort, to try to refute any of the LOADS of stats, you know?

I could invest a couple of days,

but why would I?

When you really try to see the whole thing, with ALL of the influences, you realize pretty quickly that man hasn't even BEEN on this planet long enough to have affected the natural cycles/patterns.

Something y'all don't seem to realize is that, with or without us, species would become extinct.

Shit, volcanoes erupt and millions of plants and animals are killed, but guess what?

Everything settles back down to a dull roar.

And there are OTHER things going on ~

so many none of us could make a list* of 'em.

Natural events are causing as much or more havoc than humans are, you know? 

They ALWAYS have, and always WILL

'cuz WE are NOT in control of it all.


*Anyone that appears on any forum with some sort of pre-coalated list?  Is suspect, as a troll, that just wants to suck folks into a distraction, imho.


THIS is what you're fighting ~ folks that can see a Bigger Pic than you, and that know where you're coming from, as well as what you're trying to do.  Watch the replies and see how many even click.  It's a non-issue.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> It's not worth my time, nor effort, to try to refute any of the LOADS of stats, you know?
> 
> I could invest a couple of days,
> 
> ...



Thank you for your _opinion._....


----------



## fyrenza (May 25, 2010)

You're quite welcome, I'm sure!  



YES, I'm being a post ho, but I ALSO couldn't resist!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2010)

No scientific advances made has ever been made by a fucking consensus. It is nearly always some man working his ass off on a idea or finding idea for the data he can't explain with the theory he is trying to use. SO forget it and remember that consensus is all political.

Consensus doesn't mean a bucket of warm piss in science. Maybe in politics, but science NOPE. So these scientist that made this data said they "fudged it. In most sciencist look at the data put out by these people and use it for their own research. What do you expect scientist to come up with their conclusions. It is a sad day when scientist can't think and do their own research and has to use some idiots data to get a grant. I mean you expect one out of tens of thousands of scientist that study this stuff to make his own data sets out of the data, but no; everything has to come from MR.JONE, MR.MANN, MR.Hansen. Mann was caught with his pants down with the hockey stick and we all fucking know it and so did the IPCC, but the bastard is still respected with his friends.

Truth be told the overall trend over the last ten years has been up and down in temperature being pretty much flat line. Sure we have came in warmer some years and colder the others, which avg to a flat line. After 12 fucking years we have not beat 1998 and we likely won't in the next 2-4 years. Anything is possible, but without a intense kick ass el nino aiding it, forget it. It warmed based on the data between 1950-2000 based on solar output and possibly other factors. Yes, I will admit it and do believe other factors like ocean currents, wind patterns helped a lot.


----------



## del (May 25, 2010)

at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2010)

fyrenza said:


> Hasn't the Big Fat Lie Of Global Warming been put paid to?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> ...



Cycles?  True, but irrelevant to the topic.  Cycles are the reason scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade and sometimes "hide the decline" contributed by other factors in order to winnow out the contribution of man.  Sorry, but you WILL NOT be left out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

Science by consensus?  Sweet!


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.

But whackjob dilettantes playing at science somehow think it is.  They soil science.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

del said:


> at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
> 
> consensus wasn't science then and it isn't now.



That's the kind of lamebrained, dead ignorant twaddle that is so typical of you denier cultists.

We're talking about the current scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. 'Science' as we know it is a very recent phenomenon in human history. There was no organized 'science' as such to have a consensus back in time when the accepted religious belief was that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Moreover, nitwit, no one is claiming that "consensus *is* science". Science is science and it uses evidence and data to reach conclusions about the world around us. Once there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion and most of the scientists accept that conclusion as an accurate reflection of reality, then you have a scientific consensus. The consensus rests on the science, not the other way around.

Try to find a real argument and not these silly straw-men and maybe you won't look like such an idiot.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.
> 
> But whackjob dilettantes playing at science somehow think it is.  They soil science.



You soil yourself with such stupid comments.


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> *In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:*
> A. O. Smith Corporation
> Abbott Laboratories
> Accenture Ltd.
> ...





I emboldened a three corporations which should put anyone's enthusiasm for destroying our economy over Global Climate Change Cap & Trade schemes on pause.

Now that they've bled us out over the Financial Crisis, they're moving on to a new one to extract a few more quarts.

All of the organizations you included in the complete list are salivating at getting transfer payments of Taxpayer Money.

That's the con game.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
> ...


The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate.

You are soiling science and thus you are an enemy of science.


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2010)

_The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate._
-------------------

Actually it's just the opposite.  That's not to say that consensus can't be wrong, but the deniers have to actually have some evidence to change that consensus.  So far, they've failed miserably on the scientific end, hence the big political push.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate._
> -------------------
> 
> Actually it's just the opposite.  That's not to say that consensus can't be wrong, but the deniers have to actually have some evidence to change that consensus.  So far, they've failed miserably on the scientific end, hence the big political push.


What are the deniers denying?

Note:  This is an automated message.


----------



## boedicca (May 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The fact that you think some sort of consensus is relevant to the science rules you out as any significant contributor in the debate._
> -------------------
> 
> Actually it's just the opposite.  That's not to say that consensus can't be wrong, but the deniers have to actually have some evidence to change that consensus.  So far, they've failed miserably on the scientific end, hence the big political push.




Wrongo, bub.

The onus is upon those who believe in AGW to provide proof that it is true.  Those who are not "believers" do not have to prove a negative.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
> ...



How Climate Scientists makes predictions


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.
> ...



The only problem with your consensus is it is not scientific. The SCIENTIFIC FACT is that CO2 FOLLOWS rising heat. CO2 does not LEAD it. Further the more CO2 the less of an effect it has.

Another Unscientific fact. The Temperature only raised a little over 1 degree in the 20th Century and was PREDICTED to do so LONG before anyone thought man was causing warming.

Another problem with your facts. Since 1998 there has been NO raise in world wide Temperatures. Add to that this even though the "scientists" are purposefully skewing the temperature Stations by closing those not in population heat sinks.

Further Science does not work on consensus.


----------



## del (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
> ...



are you this stupid in real life?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

del said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Many of the Warmers are in fact at least that stupid in real life


----------



## Zander (May 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.
> 
> But whackjob dilettantes playing at science somehow think it is.  They soil science.



Scientific Consensus circa 1250 AD: 
Scientist #1- The earth is FLAT!!!! 
Scientists # 2-#1,000,000 -  WE AGREE!!!
CONSENSUS - THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!!

That settles it for me.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



LOLOLOL....the fact that you think that scientific consensus has no relevance to science or to public policy making indicates that you are scientifically illiterate and ignorant about the real world. It is you nutjob denier cultists who are enemies of science.

In the real world, this is how it works:

*[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus]Scientific consensus[/URL]*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that consensus has been reached to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside" of the scientific community. In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]

*Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making
*
In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, many people of various backgrounds (political, scientific, media, action groups, and so on) have argued that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[8] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[9]

The theory of evolution through natural selection is an accepted part of the science of biology, to the extent that few observations in biology can be understood without reference to natural selection and common descent. Opponents of evolution claim that there is significant dissent on evolution within the scientific community.[10] The wedge strategy, an ambitious plan to supplant scientific materialism seen as inimical to religion, with a religion-friendly theistic science, depended greatly on seeding and building on public perceptions of absence of consensus on evolution.[11] Stephen Jay Gould has argued that creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate within the scientific community, which is not about "if" evolution occurred, but "how" it occurred.[10]

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsifiability), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness.

Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists. One might observe though, that in so far as there is an expectation that policy in a given field reflect knowable and pertinent data, and well attested and accepted models of the relationships between observable phenomena, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on so much of what may fairly be called 'the scientific consensus' in guiding policy design and implementation, at least in circumstances where the need for policy intervention is compelling. While science cannot supply 'absolute truth' (or even its complement 'absolute error') its utility is bound up with the capacity to guide policy in the direction of increased public good and away from public harm. Seen in this way, the demand that policy rely only on what is proven to be "scientific truth" would be a prescription for policy paralysis and amount in practice to advocacy of acceptance of all of the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with policy inaction.

Such considerations informed the development of 'the precautionary principle' most famously as Principle 15 of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. This stated that lack of scientific certainty was no reason to postpone action to avoid potentially serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Those who oppose robust and ubiquitous action to mitigate what the IPCC-led consensus sees as driving climate change frequently cite 'skepticism' as at the heart of 'true science' in an attempt to imply that concepts such as 'scientific consensus' can have no standing and thus play no role in public policy. Yet where this argument is not simply an instantiation of special pleading for 'business-as-usual' policies one can argue that this simply makes a false amalgam between scientific methodology as an intellectual discipline and scientifically informed policy formation, which is the benchmark for rational public policy in all areas where debates about the quality and significance of measurable real-world phenomena are pertinent.

No part of policy formation on the basis of the ostensible scientific consensus precludes persistent review either of the relevant scientific consensus or the tangible results of policy. Indeed, the same reasons that drove reliance upon the consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over timeand adjusting policy as needed.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Just as 1 billion times zero equals zero so does this list.
> ...




Do any or all of these folks explain why the climate has warmed by only 0.7 degrees in the last 2000 years.

Do any or all of these folks explain why the climate has cooled by 1 degree over the last 8000 years.

Links are welcome.


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
> ...




Does it shake your confidence at all that the "best understanding of the subject" is so weak that it does not allow accurate prediction?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



or any repeatable laboratory experiments


----------



## code1211 (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > at one point in time the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.
> ...




No scientist of any caliber at all has ever succesfully predicted climate change.  One would suppose that if it really were science, it might be useful for something beyond gaining funding.

It's not and it's not.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

Zander said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Deciding science by consensus is unscientific.
> ...



LOLOLOL. So you're really ignorant about history as well as very clueless about science. Hardly surprising in a rightwingnut denier cultist like you. 

Here's a news flash for you, buttercup. 

Circa 1250 AD - there were no scientists in the modern sense of the term, let alone a million of them, you retard. There was no scientific process whereby ideas, observations, evidence, data from experiments and theories were communicated and tested by others. No peer-reviewed scientific journals, no scientific conferences, no methods for anyone to perceive any "consensus" among the non-existent "scientists" of the time. To say that was anything like the current world scientific consensus regarding AGW back in the middle ages regarding the shape of the Earth is both wrong and stupid. In fact the 'flat earth' idea had long since been replaced by the realization the Earth is spherical.

*Flat Earth*

Beginning from ancient Greek astronomy, the paradigm  of a round (or more accurately, spherical) earth gradually spread around the world supplanting the older cosmological belief in a flat earth.[1][2][3][4]

The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[5] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[6] The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[5] 

*Myth of the Flat Earth*

The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[1].

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of flat earth darkness among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earths roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[2]

David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[3][4]

Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. [1]

    * "... with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."[5]

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.[6]

Since the early 20th century, a number of books and articles have been devoted to debunking this myth, with varying effect.

Louise Bishop wrote:

    * Virtually every thinker and writer of the thousand-year medieval period affirmed the spherical shape of the earth.[21]


----------



## PixieStix (May 25, 2010)

Zander said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



But, but, I have the chart to prove it


----------



## Zander (May 25, 2010)

PixieStix said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Well played!!! Here's another.......Leprechauns cause Global warming!!!


----------



## Zander (May 25, 2010)

Clearly. killing of Pirates cause Global warming. Just look at this chart!! Also, I spoke with a scientist around the corner, he agreed. We now have correlation and consensus.   Take that Deniers!!!


----------



## frazzledgear (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> *The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change*



Too bad science and scientific truth is never determined by a CONSENSUS.  Maybe you didn't know that, maybe you really are impressed by sheer numbers and maybe you really think whatever the majority agrees with at the time automatically becomes scientific truth.  You are wrong.  

At one time there was UNIFORM consensus of the world that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth.  Well since it was a CONSENSUS, that obviously proved they really were revolving around the earth and they didn't stop revolving around the earth until the CONSENSUS was they weren't revolving around the earth.   At one time there was consensus that the ability to turn other metals into gold was possible -I guess that means it really was possible to turn other metals into gold until the CONSENSUS decided it wasn't possible after all.  Only then was it no longer possible to turn other metals into gold.  See how science becomes whatever you NEED it to be if you decide just having a CONSENSUS about it is what determines scientific accuracy and truth?   I would laugh except for the fact there was once a consensus regarding the theory of eugenics and 6,000,000 Jews died because of that consensus as did another 6,000,000,000 handicapped, gypsies, homosexuals and political enemies.  But I'm sure with their last gasp they were all so relieved to know that there was such a significant consensus who agreed they all belonged dead.

A CONSENSUS doesn't impress me whatsoever and frankly I wonder about people who are when it comes to science since the opinions of others about whether they believe a theory they have heard about serves ZERO purpose except to those pushing a political agenda in front of that theory.  For those who have politicized it, then a CONSENSUS about how to best exploit that theory for their political agenda is absolutely necessary -which is why people like you keep pretending a CONSENSUS is really, really important because that is how a theory gets proved out.    

Otherwise being impressed by a consensus is pretty much like asking a group of janitors their opinions about how to best remove a brain tumor.  If they don't know how to remove it in the first place then why would you even give a flying fuck what their opinion was?   So why should I be impressed by the names of BUSINESSES about whether global warming is true or not?  ROFL

Try to get this one.  Others are NEVER under any obligation to explain or justify why they refuse to fall on their knees and treat an unproven and hotly disputed theory as a religion and pretend scientists are gods and I must worship whatever gibberish they feel like theorizing about.  It is ABSOLUTELY incumbent upon scientists to provide the INDISPUTABLE evidence and facts first.  Since this theory is not only very much disputed on several different levels but there are now REAMS of evidence the data has been falsified, raw data destroyed, lies, distortions and exaggerations made that would put any drama queen to shame -then sorry, your consensus doesn't mean jack shit and it still has no bearing on making this theory somehow more likely to be true than not.  Your gods of science turned out to have feet of clay -no less corruptible than any other kind of human being, no less guilty of lying, fabricating, falsifying and cheating.  They get caught cheating, lying and destroying raw data and people like you STILL demand unquestioning worship at this altar?  Wow   I can't think of ANY other scientific theory where there have been such scores of accusations and evidence of falsifying data, destruction of raw data, lies and exaggerations  where that theory ended up proving out after all.  Probably because the TRUTH doesn't need be to falsified to be true.  CORRUPTION does not make good science and only renders it all suspect.  No matter how many corporations and others who didn't do any of the work may be otherwise impressed.

A consensus will never make a theory more likely to be correct than having a consensus about the world being flat actually meant something about whether the earth really was flat or not.   What a pity there are still people who believe otherwise.   /url]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

Zander said:


> Clearly. killing of Pirates cause Global warming. Just look at this chart!! Also, I spoke with a scientist around the corner, he agreed. We now have correlation and consensus.   Take that Deniers!!!



I have peer reviewed this post and found it 100% accurate.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2010)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...




 Me, I would dump more money into researching the effects on clouds and other factors that control our climate. Until than no model will even come close to being able to forecast the climate. In fact it will be a joke.

We don't have a idea what all the factors are. We know some, but we don't have a long enough record of even the ones we know. Hell yes it shakes my confidence, about the same way as using the super extended gfs based on todays model physics , and trying to extend that out a month and forecast any single tropical cyclone development with it. I would and most people like me would laugh at that for the fact that no model can even forecast the large scale worth a bucket of spit out more then 2 weeks.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LMAO!  I am "scientifically illiterate"!

Too funny.

Anyway, I'll call your wiki link and raise it.

Science is not decided by consensus.  Don't believe me, though.  Believe Karl Popper who established the logic of scientific discovery.  No where is consensus any part of the logic of scientific discovery.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2010)

Here's a very pertinent scientific study of the actual gauge of scientific knowledge and 'consensus' which is the papers that get published in the reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

*The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the Earths surface.*

Naomi Oreskes
VOL 306 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
3 DECEMBER 2004
Published by AAAS

Policy-makers and the media, particular-ly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce green-house gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, thenEPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCCs purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earths climate is being affected by human activities: Human activities  are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents  that absorb or scatter radiant energy.  Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members expertis bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: The IPCCs conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 ).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords climate change (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

*This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.*

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press,Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See AAAS ATLAS OF POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put climate change in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, Consensus in science: How do we know were not wrong, presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M.T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.


The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.

© 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2010)

Matthew said:


> I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.
> 
> But anyways, one can dream, but I doubt this lie of global warming is really happening. So I doubt humanity is going to get off its ass any time soon and do what it's good at.



What is the basis of your doubt, Mathew?


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.
> ...







Probably the lack of any credible science to back up the claims.  Other than that I don't see a problem.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it was true because I went to see man kind go to the stars and explore those trillions of extra-solar planets. I believe human kind is best when exploring, but because of things right now in our history, we've become lazy. I support anthropogenic climate change because we need a fire lit under our asses to get us off this rock. I hope it warms 20c over the next 200 years. To do so.
> ...



Obama is killing our space program at a time when we're finding hundreds of planets around almost every star. It is one big joke what he is doing to our space program. Also co2 as a green house is a joke. Don't point to Venus for your answers because its Atmosphere is 97 percent co2 and is 20 million miles closer to the sun then earth. Far more solar input. No oceans either like we on earth to have to trap it and to keep our planet at a constant temperature.

I just feel that we humans need a nice hot prod to get back into the exploring mood.


----------



## gslack (May 28, 2010)

Only a true trolling hack would re-post the same thing as much as trollingblunder has..... Anyone who wasn't sure just how much honesty there is left in the AGW corwd, need look no further to see its not about truth or science but selling an agenda....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 28, 2010)

Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.

*American Geophysical Union*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Geophysical Union (or AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 50,000 members from over 135 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.

The mission of the AGU is

* to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public,
* to promote cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines,
* to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs,
* to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information.

The AGU was established in 1919 by the National Research Council and for more than 50 years operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1972 AGU was incorporated in the District of Columbia and membership was opened to scientists and students worldwide.

AGU is the publisher of several scientific periodicals, including the weekly Eos newspaper and eighteen peer-reviewed research journals, most notably the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters.

**************************************************

*AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate*

Print Version (34781 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 84, NO. 51, doi:10.1029/2003EO510005, 2003

Abstract

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

AGU Position Statement on Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(51), doi:10.1029/2003EO510005.

Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.

&

*Human Impacts on Climate*

Print Version (43336 bytes)

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 89, NO. 5, doi:10.1029/2008EO050006, 2008

Abstract

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate systemincluding the temperatures of the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasonsare now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 19562006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

Published 29 January 2008.

Human Impacts on Climate, Eos Trans. AGU, 89(5), doi:10.1029/2008EO050006.

Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## gslack (May 28, 2010)

BLAH BLAH BLAH....BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!

The end is coming! Look at all my evidence which all comes from the same bullshit pseudo-science already shown to be fraudulent....

REPENT I SAY!


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






Mathew I have to say I concur with everything you say.  However we don't need some crisis to motivate our exploration....we need money.  There are plenty of people who wish to head out into space but we keep pissing the money away on BS like GW.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.
> 
> *American Geophysical Union*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...







Blunder take a look at my other posts....nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore.   25% belief and falling with no end in sight.  You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?"  Face it you lost...now go away.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

Zander said:


> Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".



Sorry, Zander old boy, science is indeed about consensus. We accept evolution as the explanation of the life we see on this planet today because almost all the scientists in the world that study the subject state that by the evidence they see and present, that is the only explanation that fits.

Today, the vast majority of scientists in the field of earth sciences state that the globe is warming, and the primary driver of that warming is GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus far, no scientists have presented credible evidence to show that this is not the case. And the evidence for it has been presented since 1820.

At the time of Copernicus, there were no 'scientists'. The scientific method had yet to be invented. It was through the efforts of Copernicus, Galileo, and many, many others that the scientific method came into being much later than either gentleman.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

Walleyes, every one has seen the drivel you present in your posts. Shit from the political sites with zero scientific revelance. Thunder presented abstracts from one of the premier peer reviewed scientific journals in existance.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> BLAH BLAH BLAH....BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!
> 
> The end is coming! Look at all my evidence which all comes from the same bullshit pseudo-science already shown to be fraudulent....
> 
> REPENT I SAY!



Hey, ol' Suckee..... chimes in again with the usual idiocy. Oh well, when faces with real evidence contrary to living in some alternative reality, retreat inot insults and nonsense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2010)

And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.

There is not one single experiment.

Not one.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Does it shake your confidence in your purposeful lies that the predictions have all been on the conservative side? That the primary failure is that the warming is happening and accelerating at a faster rate than predicted?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
> 
> There is not one single experiment.
> 
> Not one.



Hmmm........  P-T extinction period, PETM period. Both cases, rapid increases in GHGs, resulting in rapid climate changes which resulted in periods of extinction.

Little research is neccessary to find this information. However, most politically driven idiots eschew research, and just repeat the words of an obese drug addict.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
> ...



But you hypothesis states that deminimus increases (200PPM) causes the catastrophic changes.  That should be a piece of cake to demonstrate in a laboratory setting.

The PT Event was planetwide, probably from a massive impact or gamma ray burst and yet you're putting our SUV's on par with it


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

code1211 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



And when, in the period that we have had predictive science, have we had an adrupt climate change? No, we are not knowledgeable enough in this area at present to state that when we cross this clearly delineated threshold, we will see climate change.

But we do know from past geological history that the thresholds exist, and, that when crossed, the result has been very bad for life existing at that time.

What we are seeing the climatologists, atmospheric physicists, and geo-physicists engaged in today is real science. They are measuring the rapid changes in the atmospheric circulation, the changing wind patterns, and the changes in the ice in the alpine glaciers and ice caps. All the evidence points to the conclusion that we are near, or already past that threshold.

You who cackle with derision at the presentation of these scientists are the some type of people that put Galileo to torture. Luddites willfully ignorant and afraid of reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



There is plenty of proxy evidence for the event, the eruptions of the Siberian Trapps, and the resultant rapid increase in GHGs that caused the P-T Extinction. No evidence of a K-T type impact or Gamma ray burst.

Methane Catastrophe


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..""

Your AGW colored glasses tint your worldview


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
> ...




The scientists accept evolution due to the overwhelming body of evidence that precludes andy reasonable doubt.

Comparing the science of evolution to the hypothesis of AGW is like comparing the anti matter reactors from Star Trek to the internal combustion engine.  One exists in real life and works while the other is theoretically possible but exists only in the minds of some very imaginative people.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




What predictions are you citing?  Dr. Hansen's prediction missed by 300% on the warm side.  MIT produces a prediction annually that is different from the previous year.  One might suppose that if the prediction was right on the first go-round, the succeeding predictions might be similar.

Please post a link to a prediction from 30 years ago that has been shown to be accurate.


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
> ...




How many tens of millions of years agow were these occurances and what was the average prevailing temperature globally at the beginning and end of the phenoms you are citing.  Where were the continents?

The differences were so great that the planet then vs. now was for all intents and purposes a different planet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2010)

code1211 said:


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



Let's play everyone favorite pseudo-scientific game:

Wheel of Climate Change!!


----------



## code1211 (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




And yet, we are still about 1 degree cooler than we were 8000 years ago and several degrees cooler than before the PETM event started.  Go figure.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the Warmers cannot point to a single repeatable laboratory experiment, not a single one, that show temperature and climate change as a direct result of a 200PPM increase in CO2.
> ...



I highlighted the words you ignored.

Got anything besides pointing to places and times when it was warmer and claiming "SEE THAT? GLOBAL WARMING AHOY!"


----------



## Si modo (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Google Copernicus........CASE CLOSED!!! Sorry, science is not about "Consensus".
> ...


Bullshit.  You are still playing at science and soiling it. Or, you are thick and dumber than a box of old rocks.  Still, you soil science.  You, and so many like you, are its enemy.

Don't believe me, though.  Believe Karl Popper who established the logic of scientific discovery.  No where is consensus any part of the logic of scientific discovery


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the last two position statements, from 2003 and 2008, from one of the largest scientific societies in the world, the American Geophysical Union. A little info on them first.
> ...


I have looked at them, walleyed, and they are all pretty stupid and clueless, just like you, just like this latest post of yours.





westwall said:


> nobody with half a brain believes this crap anymore.   25% belief and falling with no end in sight.


Actually nobody with more than half a brain believes your denier cult crap. That still leaves you all of 'tea baggers' and most Republicans who you can try to bamboozle with your intellectually bankrupt propaganda. The fossil fuel industry propaganda has been somewhat effective in confusing people but that triumph of lies over truth will not last very long as the world average temperatures hit new record highs, probably this year and certainly in the next few years and various climate disasters unfold. 

The hypocrisy of you dimbulb deniers is hilarious. First you pretend that the strong consensus among the world scientific community is meaningless and then you trumpet some poll showing less public support as if that proved something. 

*A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem
*
Monday, April 19, 2010





westwall said:


> You AGW clowns keep lying about how warm it is and the people freezing their asses off are saying "what effing planet are they on?"  Face it you lost...now go away.


I know you cultists like to tell each other these reassuring stories about how you've won and I'm sure the flat earth society folks tell each other the same kind of fables. Meanwhile in the real world, 2009 was the second warmest year on record and 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record.

*NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

Also Warmest January-April*

May 17, 2010

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for both April and for the period from January-April, according to NOAA. Additionally, last months average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for any April, and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record.

The monthly analysis from NOAAs National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880...


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, every one has seen the drivel you present in your posts. Shit from the political sites with zero scientific revelance. Thunder presented abstracts from one of the premier peer reviewed scientific journals in existance.







And they cooked the books and got caught at it old fraud.  I too post abstracts from many scientific sites and you propagandists choose to ignore those.  You post garbage from all sorts of warmist sites and think that is OK?  Just prooves what a absolute cultist you are.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Blunder all I can say to you is you keep posting old BS that has been proven false on almost every level.  All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud.  All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud.  All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.

On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west.  In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.

So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well.  Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED.

I hope you are one of them.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2010)

I will now destroy "Consensus Science" with two words.

ahem.

*"Spontaneous Generation"*

Before Louis Pasteur proved conclusively with a scientific test that there was no such thing as spontaneous generation, people believed rotting meat generated flies.  Eels grew from rivermud.  Mold and algae generated from stagnant water.

The entire world and academia believed in this theory.

There's your consensus science for you.

Two words and done.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Now you are in my field bozo and nothing you say is factual.  There is ZERO evidence that the Permian Triassic extinction was caused by runaway global warming.  I've seen the bs theories that the AGW types have come up with to support their ideas and they are laughable. 

 Furthermore trying to tie the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum into a 'standard GW' event is a joke.  The warming came first then came massive injections of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere and hydrosphere, and even with that there was only a 6 to 9 degree rise in temperatures.  Also because of the lack of carbonate deposits they are thinking that the Warming and subsequent CO2 release may have occured long before the Thermal Maximum got properly started.  So far the most extensive record they have is from the site 690 records.  Sites 1262 and 1263 on the Walvis ridge are fairly well studied and they show some of the same problems with lack of carbonate deposits.

Additionally the PETM occurs soon after the beginning of the massive flood basalts and the breakup of the super continent.  There is a formation called the Danish Ash-17 and another called the Skraenterne Formation Tuff that border the PETM in time so mass volcanism is the most likely cause of the PETM.  The AGW foks want to blame CO2 and methane (and I can almost agree to a boost caused by the methane) for the warming but 
having a global eruption I think is more likely.  It was just bloody hot out there from all of the volcanic activity.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's your denier cult myth but it is itself quite false. In the real world, the material I've been posting is solid science from peer reviewed science journals. The nonsense you post that you imagine 'disproves' the science is just more half-witted pseudo-science that you get off of oil corp sponsored blogs. But you're too ignorant about real science and way too stupid to understand that.




westwall said:


> All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud.  All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud.  All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.


Total bullshit, walleyed. Paranoid nonsense that only a complete idiot would fall for. These organizations are the premier science societies and professional organizations in the world. Your delusional, baseless slanders of good scientists are ridiculous to anyone who knows real scientists. You believe that crap because it suits your political agenda, not because you have any believable evidence for the charges.






westwall said:


> On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west.


Wow, you really are completely delusional, aren't you walleyed? Your fossil fuel industry propaganda puppet masters have a huge trillion dollar a year VESTED INTEREST in preventing or delaying the necessary severe limits on carbon emissions.





westwall said:


> In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.


That's another one of your delusions that is stupidly wrong.






westwall said:


> So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well.  Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED. I hope you are one of them.


You are the complete fool who has been duped by the fossil fuel industry into being their 'useful idiot' and spreading their propaganda for free. Unless you are one of their paid agents of disinformation and are posting these lies for money, which seems quite possible given your persistence in repeating the lies over and over. Your posts are inevitably moronic mishmashes of lies and spin from phony sources. It is quite probable that those organizing this propaganda campaign will eventually be brought to trial for crimes against humanity. I hope you are up there on the dock with them.


----------



## pans trogladyta (May 29, 2010)

westwall said:


> Blunder all I can say to you is you keep posting old BS that has been proven false on almost every level.  All of these organisations are heavily invested in the fraud.  All of these "scientists" are profiting greatly from the fraud.  All of these laws are designed to enable them to profit more.




So your answer is,  "it's all a conspiracy"?  Had several long talks with the man on the grassy knoll huh?




> On the other hand the sceptics have NO VESTED INTEREST in the passage of all of these laws that will impoverish the west.




Yeah big oil and big coal don't have a dog in this race.




> In every case you can show me some bs study and I can show you how the big cheese is poised to make millions and in some cases billions of dollars from the laws when they pass.




Prove it.




> So you are either a complete fool (they call folks like you 'useful idiots') or you are positioned to profit from the fraud as well.




While we are on the subject of useful idiots....




> Either way as you can see by all of the posts I have been making...your religion, cult, global scam is FAILING IN A BIG WAY AND THE PERPETRATORS ARE GOING TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE THEFTS THEY HAVE ALLREADY COMMITED.
> 
> I hope you are one of them.





What a load of manure, you sound like a creationist venting at an evolutionist.


----------



## pans trogladyta (May 29, 2010)

Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists?  Right down to the tactics and language.  Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.


----------



## gslack (May 29, 2010)

pans trogladyta said:


> Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists?  Right down to the tactics and language.  Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.



Stop talking to yourself troll....


----------



## gslack (May 30, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Trollingblunder you just went past troll to full on spammer.... You just posted virtually the same post in another thread.. Same links, same nonsense...

Lets do to that post What I did to it in the other thread shall we? Your link: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record

The article says this in the headline.... "NOAA: Warmest April Global Temperature on Record"

But the article among other things says the following things....



> The warmth was most pronounced in the equatorial portions of the major oceans, especially the Atlantic.



THen a bit later it says this....



> El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) weakened in April, as sea-surface temperature anomalies decreased across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The weakening contributed significantly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and the warmth of the overall ocean temperature for April. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, El Niño is expected to continue through June.



They tell us the warming is mostly due to the El Nino Southern oscillation weakening in april. And that weakening contributed greatly to the warmth observed in the tropical belt and overall ocean warmth.... So its wasn't AGW as you and the title would lead us to beleive, it was because of EL Nino cycles....... Do you fucking read anything beyond the headlines? Shameful truly shameful.... You are a liar sir...

Reading that article you linked to we actually find a great disparity regional temps and weather. It was dry here, wet there. it was hot here cold there.. Yeah kind of like a climate should work normally huh.....

You are fucking done in by your own links again.... Nice work blunder....


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2010)

pans trogladyta said:


> Hey rolling thunder, have you noticed how much the opposition here sounds like a bunch of creationists?  Right down to the tactics and language.  Including the bit about calling global warming a cult or religion.






 I will let an M.I.T. professor answer for me.  I particularly like his comment that we should stop using the term skeptic because that would imply that the GW theory is plausible and it isn't.  I quite like that.  And mr. trogladyte I suggest you return to the cave from whence you came.  I love how you try and slander me with the term creationist when I am nothing of the sort.  I am a solid Darwinist and just like the finches had to adapt to survive on the Galapagos so too will the scientists who wish to survive the fraud of global warming.




 By Jeff Poor 
Business & Media Institute
5/19/2010 9:43:57 AM 



If you listened to Barack Obama back during the 2008 presidential campaign, you may recall him explaining that words matter. According to leading climate scientist and M.I.T. professor Richard Lindzen, there is a good bit of wisdom in that, as it pertains to the debate about global warming.



Lindzen, speaking at the Heartland Institutes International Conference on Climate Change on May 17 in Chicago, explained that by assuming the skeptic label, the anti-global warming alarmist movement implies the theory is plausible. And according to the M.I.T. professor, it isnt.



One suggestion Id make is we stop accepting the term skeptic, Lindzen said. As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.



Lindzen told the audience the alarmists have simply failed to prove their case.



For 20 years more than 20 years unfortunately, 22 by now, since 88  of repetition, escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, he continued. I would suggest the failure to prove the case of 20 years makes the case even less plausible, as does the evidence of ClimateGate and other instances.



And Lindzen ruled out the possibility the imminent destruction as a result of any potential climate catastrophe.



In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in global average temperature model, Im quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon, though in several thousand years, we may return to an ice age.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

*Lindzen's primary hypothesis failed the evidential tests.*

Richard S. Lindzen - SourceWatch

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments
An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."[15]


Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."[16]


On Tobacco
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[17]


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

*Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.*

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.


----------



## Si modo (May 30, 2010)

Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????


Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.







PEER-REVIEVEWED science.  Post that.  Evaluate THAT.  All you are doing is allowing others to think for you.  I understand why, too.


----------



## Si modo (May 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.*
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
> 
> ...



That model is on its face, non-scientific because it is not falsifiable.
1.  It assumes climate sensitivity (If a model must assume its conclusion, duh.)
2.  The data set of possible output all indicate warming irrespective of the dataset input.  On its face, that is also non-falsifiable.





Non-scientific.


So basic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.*
> 
> Climate change odds much worse than thought
> 
> ...



Here's how real Climate Scientists predict Global Warming, you fool

Wheel of Climate Change!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.*
> ...



They spun the wheel 400 times and it came out warmer almost every time


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> 
> 
> Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.
> ...




Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols


J. F. B. Mitchell, T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory & S. F. B. Tett


Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Meteorological Office, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK


CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models. Here we use a coupled oceaná¤-atmosphere general circulation model to simulate past and future climate since the beginning of the near-global instrumental surface-temperature record4, and include the effects of the scattering of radiation by sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of sulphate aerosols significantly improves the agreement with observed global mean and large-scale patterns of temperature in recent decades, although the improvement in simulations of specific regions is equivocal. We predict a future global mean warming of 0.3 K per decade for greenhouse gases alone, or 0.2 K per decade with sulphate aerosol forcing included. By 2050, all land areas have warmed in our simulations, despite strong negative radiative forcing in some regions. These model results suggest that global warming could accelerate as greenhouse-gas forcing begins to dominate over sulphate aerosol forcing.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> 
> 
> Then, we have OldRocks posting his blogs.
> ...



My, my, ol' Si chimes in again. Silly ass, post something to support you assinine point of view.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> ...





I particularly like this passage of your drivel

"CLIMATE models suggest that increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere should have produced a larger global mean warming than has been observed in recent decades, unless the climate is less sensitive than is predicted by the present generation of coupled general circulation models1,2. After greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols probably exert the next largest anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere3, but their influence on global mean warming has not been assessed using such models.

So what they are saying is "the empirical data shows that our projections were completely and utterly wrong.  there has been nowhere near what we predicted there would be in terms of ACTUAL recorded global warming so now we have to make up some new threat to panic the natives."  OK, so that's my translation...it's fairly accurate though...don't you think?

Par for the course old fraud...and only the true believers will pay any attention to this crap anymore.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> ...






  Why bother?  All you post is crap.  There's nothing to discuss with your "evidence" it's laughable at best and insulting at worst.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 31, 2010)

Here in Portland, I hope it warms up 10-15f soon and becomes sunny. We need a nice HOT SUMMER!

Also Westwall one of the reasons I believe the models are less sensitive is they completely over look a important factors that they can't even start to account for and that is CLOUDS. The solar "energy" readmitted back into space from thick clouds is a good percentage(forgot the number). 

The funny thing is with a warmer planet=more convective clouds, which are thick and reflective as hell. A more tropical planet would have more of them. Sure the stratus can reflect, so maybe it is not a huge deal, but this is a increase over the tropical areas of our planet none the less.

If I remember that we have only warmed around maybe .3-.4 within the last 60 years. That was having the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years(since the med evil warm period) Of course it warmed up some what more since 1880, but not much. In put in the fact that we where climbing out of a full scale little ice age that was 1.0-1.5c colder then today over the earth and you can then ask your self how? How do we warm up 4-7c within the next 90 years? That is something that will have to happen without the two factors above no longer in place and would be one of the greatest climate changes since the younger dyes. of 8.5-10 thousand years ago. 

So are you global warmers saying that our planet is some how going to double the co2 levels in our Atmosphere? I also find this hard to believe being that yes it did rise from 280 to 390 ppm today, but that was over 120-150 years. What your saying is the whole damn thing is going to double on its self in 90 years? Hard to believe.

If I had to guess we won't hit 500 ppm by 2100. In fact if we see another dalton or little ice age the oceans will become colder and act as sinks for the co2. In which will lower the current amount of co2 in the Atmosphere. In to warm up 4c by 2100 we would have to warm at a rate of 4 times that of the last century. Not going to happen dudes.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

*The rate of increase in the worldwide emmissions of CO2 has been exceeding best estimates for the past two decades. Now we have another factor. The permafrost and arctic ocean clathrates are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4.*

EIA - 2010 International Energy Outlook

World Carbon Dioxide Emissions  

World energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from 29.7 billion metric tons in 2007 to 33.8 billion metric tons in 2020 and 42.4 billion metric tons in 2035&#8212;an increase of 43 percent over the projection period. With strong economic growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels expected for most of the non-OECD economies under current policies, much of the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions occurs among the developing non-OECD nations. In 2007, non-OECD emissions exceeded OECD emissions by 17 percent; in 2035, they are projected to be double the OECD emissions (Figure 10).


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.

The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> ...



As you've not posted any peer-reviewed science, you've supported it yourself.  My comments on it are based on your own link.  It's called reading, thinking critically, and commenting.

Again, it's not rocket science. It's not even science, just remedial critical thought.  And, you cannot even get into the stadium to play at science if you cannot even think critically.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Lindzen does not speak for MIT. Here are the real researchers from MIT.*
> ...



You know, Si, you are running with a really erudite crowd. Aren't you so proud to have Frank, Walleyes, Suckee, Elvis, and the other intellectual giants on this board in your corner? Yessiree..... old gal, yer lookin' good, you and the whole  bunch of wingnuts.


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Thunder actually believes that his links are peer-reviewed pieces?????????
> ...



Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract.


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



'In my corner'?

I'm wondering what that has to do with anything logical or scientific.  Or, are you still stuck on consensus having something to do with scientific discovery? It's hard to tell when you are flailing so.

Surely, you can let us all know, being the amateur scientist soiling science by playing at it that you are.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



My, my, waxing a bit idiotic today are we, old gal? Of course I realize that it is an abstract. Had I posted from the article, since it is available only to subscribers or those that pay for it, it would not have been legal.

You did notice that it was a peer reviewed article, did you not? And that it stated unequivically that AGW is occuring.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Birds of a feather


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Not much logical about that, yet, you expect us to respect what you say on a scientific subject.  Amazing.

You're not even able to get admission to the stadium.


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Oh.....


my......


Gawd.


I didn't comment about your knowing it is an abstract. 

"Sad, but I doubt you even realize what you posted with that abstract."


 But, you demonstrate your reading comprehension skills, so I can understand _why_ you posted the abstract.


----------



## Si modo (May 31, 2010)

Come on, Rocks and/or RollingThunder.  Tell us again how consensus has everything to do with science.  You know you want to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *The rate of increase in the worldwide emmissions of CO2 has been exceeding best estimates for the past two decades. Now we have another factor. The permafrost and arctic ocean clathrates are emitting huge amounts of CO2 and CH4.*
> 
> EIA - 2010 International Energy Outlook
> 
> ...



Wow!  Wow! WOW!!

Those projections have big numbers in them! At that rate, in the year 25,875, Earth atmosphere will resemble the atmosphere of Venus!

Wow!

WOW!

How many metric tons of gas in Earth atmosphere? Remind me again? Is that a big number too?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2010)

> Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, *and will be taking up even less in the future.*



1.Prove its happening with a scientific, independently repeatable test so your work can be checked by honest vendors.  

2. Then prove that this is a bad thing to occur.  

3. Then prove it's our fault or that we have the capability to stop it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, *and will be taking up even less in the future.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.Prove its happening with a scientific, independently repeatable test so your work can be checked by honest vendors.  

Warmers just point to places and times when it's warmer and say: Thar she blows!! Global Warming off the port bow!


----------



## Zander (May 31, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate!


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.
> 
> The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer, they could become net emitters as the warming continues. And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.






This is factually inaccurate old fraud....once again you have strayed into my realm.  The oceans are the biggest processor of CO2 when the plant life can no longer handle the overflow (and that hasn't happened in 5 million years or so BTW) and the result is the creation of limestone.   5 million years ago is the last time there was an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans processed it into dolomite (a form of limestone) in shallow seas all over the globe.

I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution.  No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years.

Quit peddling nonsense.  Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.
> ...



Wrong again

http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/publi/Le_Quere_et_al_Science_reprint_2007.pdf


> Based on observed atmospheric CO2 concentration and an inverse method, we estimate that the
> Southern Ocean sink of CO2 has weakened between 1981 and 2004 by 0.08 PgC/y per decade
> relative to the trend expected from the large increase in atmospheric CO2. This weakening is
> attributed to the observed increase in Southern Ocean winds resulting from human activities and
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Another point, the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.
> ...


LOL...and what "realm" would that be, walleyed? 'Wonderland'? 'Cloud-Cookoo-Land'? 'Oz'? Or just your usual dimwitted delusional fantasyland for science poseurs? 




westwall said:


> The oceans are the biggest processor of CO2 when the plant life can no longer handle the overflow (and that hasn't happened in 5 million years or so BTW) and the result is the creation of limestone.   5 million years ago is the last time there was an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans processed it into dolomite (a form of limestone) in shallow seas all over the globe.


If this is your "realm", then you're in trouble 'cause you're just as full of shit here as you are with everything else scientific. Dolomite, or calcium magnesium carbonate: CaMg(CO3), is not a form of limestone, or calcium carbonate: CaCO3. Dolomite is another sedimentary rock that sometimes replaces limestone and becomes part of limestone formations. Limestone is a sedimentary rock usually composed of grains that are mostly formed from the skeletal fragments of marine organisms such as coral or foraminifera. The oceans don't "process" CO2 directly into limestone magically as you seem to assume. The limestone is formed from the skeletal parts of countless minute marine organisms falling as sediment and collecting on the sea floor for millions of years and getting compressed into stone. That is a form of natural carbon sequestration but it has almost nothing to do with what OldRocks was saying. Nor is it dependent on a really high CO2 level in the atmosphere. You are being totally irrelevant and off the wall, walleyed.






westwall said:


> I suggest you look at the formation of sedimentary rocks and how going from the beach out you get first a sandstone then a mudstone and finally in the deeper seas, far enough away from the heavier sediments, you get limestone formation....but only if you have enough CO2 in solution.  No CO2 no limestone formation....and there has been no limestone formation (other than some true exotics) in 5 million years. Quit peddling nonsense.  Take a geology class so at least you have SOME knowledge of what you are blathering.


You are never more pathetic, walleyed, than when you are pretending to know more than you actually do. Of course in your case, that is pretty much all the time.

OldRocks' points that you imagined you were disputing:
"*the carbon sinks, the oceans and forests, are now taking up less CO2, and will be taking up even less in the future.*" This is true and you didn't even come close to refuting it.

"*The oceans are becoming saturated and warmer*", also quite true.

"*they could become net emitters as the warming continues*", warmer water holds less dissolved CO2 so this is also true.

"*And we are destroying more and more of our forests worldwide.*" - Indisputable

So another epic fail for you, walleyed, as you fail to refute anything in that post but only make yourself look like an lying deluded idiot, again.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


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






The only part of this that is factual is that yes indeed the forests are being destroyed as I have stated many imes in the past.  All of the rest is garbage.  Congrats you have done nothing but let people know how limited your vocabulary is.

And here is a link to your supposed ocean CO2 problem.  Read it and then report to the class what you learned.

CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


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







Hi toober,

Maybe you should return back to the garden.  Here is the last paragraph of your report.  The report basically says they waved their arms around a lot and they really couldn't figure out exactly what they want to say but it must be GW related but in the end they have to admit that the oceans will be able to absorb whatever the atmosphere has to give them.  I highlighted the relevant section in big bold letters so that even you could see it.


Observations suggest that the trend in the Southern Ocean winds may be a consequence of the
depletion of stratospheric ozone (26). Models suggest that part of the trend may also be caused by
changes in surface temperature gradients resulting from global warming (27-28). Climate models
project a continued intensification in the Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if
atmospheric CO2 continues to increase (28).* The ocean CO2 sink will persist as long as atmospheric
CO2 increases*, but (i) the fraction of the CO2 emissions that the ocean is able to absorb may
decrease if the observed intensification of the Southern Ocean winds continues in the future, and
(ii) the level at which atmospheric CO2 will stabilize on a multi-century time-scale may be higher if
natural CO2 is outgassed from the Southern Ocean.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 31, 2010)

If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.

YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know. 

If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.

The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.
> 
> The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.



But AGW happens overnight.

It is so so so so so so so powerful that you cannot duplicate it in a laboratory setting, amiright?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Observations suggest that the trend in the Southern Ocean winds may be a consequence of the
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

Matthew said:


> If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.
> 
> YES the level of co2 is rising and a warmer ocean=less able to hold the co2, but we humans if you global warmers are "right"(In which I kind of doubt) then good for humanity. In my opinion we're just in a warm period not unlike the med evil warm period and could go into another little ice age or a full blown within the next few hundred years with all I know.
> 
> If your right and this is stopping another full blown ice age. Humanity just scored and won the fucking jackpot.




The three stages of AGW denial

1. Global warming ... its not happening ... BUT IF IT IS - we have nothing to do with it!

2. Global warming ... we have nothing to do with it ... BUT IF WE DO - its beneficial!

3. Global warming ... its beneficial ... BUT IF IT ISN'T - its too late to do anything about it anyway!


You're at #2


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.
> 
> The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.



Now there ya go talkin out yer ass again oldsocks.....

A lot more to it than milankovic cycles troll boy so knock off the bullshit already...


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> Ahh but I did read it young man.



No you didn't. Seriously, you aren't fooling anyone. 




> I notice you are now sporting a USC tag....manufacturing a new personna are you?



You obviously  know nothing about college football, don't even bother.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.
> 
> The climate change that is going to be the result of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere will be rapid, probably no more than a decade. A good study for what happens in that kind of change is the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas.







Well gee old fraud....you guys have been claiming that the warming would start ten years ago...or was it twenty? And still no joy.  Seems to me something is wrong with your theory.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mathew, Mathew. An ice age brought on by the Milankovic Cycles does not happen overnight. Plenty of warning, and a long time, 100s of generations, to prepare.
> ...



Scientific method?  Pffft.  Just recruit dilettantes to promote your theory and damn the method.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOL. You still imagine that anyone just takes your word for it on anything? LOL. No, little wallbanger, you have to do better than just saying that it's all garbage. You haven't offered anything to refute the statement that the oceans are now absorbing less CO2 and will absorb even less in the future or the statement that the oceans are becoming warmer and more CO2 saturated or the statement that the oceans will probably become net CO2 emitters as they warm up more. Once again you spew ignorant drivel and lies and can't back them up with any scientific evidence. You are a denier cult troll and your posts are worthless propaganda empty of any substance.







westwall said:


> Congrats you have done nothing but let people know how limited your vocabulary is.


LOLOLOLOLOL....my vocabulary??? LOLOLOLOL. You have done nothing but let people know what an ignorant lying denier cult troll you are. You have nothing to back up your delusions but more hot air.





westwall said:


> And here is a link to your supposed ocean CO2 problem.  Read it and then report to the class what you learned.
> 
> CO2 Pollution and Global Warming: When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant? (EnvironmentalChemistry.com)



That's a good article that doesn't support your delusions at all. Just the opposite. I've learned that you are a foolish troll who understands so little about this that you post links to articles that support your debate opponent's position instead of your own.

Here's two excerpts from the article you cited:

"No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities."

"It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

    * There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
    * There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12. 

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

    * There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
    * The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming. "


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Hey old fraud/trolling blunder/and whoever else you create to support you hysterical screaming, it's over, you lost, go away.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.
> ...


ooOOOOooo!  Look who found new talking points on his 'vacation'.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

Si modo said:


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



Yap, yap, yap. What the hell would you know about scientific method, old gal? You have yet to post sites that are peer reviewed and state that AGW is not real.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Fritz, have you ever considered taking a science course? How about geology? Chemistry? Physics? Any or all would vastly improve your present state of ignorance.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...







I think you should follow your advice old fraud.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Took enough college level earth science course to know you're full of shit crocks.  Even if I don't get my jollies going after greenporn articles like they're really science and chock full of truthiness, I can smell BS.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I've taken 2 terms of Geology each with A's and Chemistry. I'm going to transfer and major in Meteorology because I like it the best. I've been watching weather from the climate to hurricanes for most of my 24 years on earth. Also, I more or less get excited and get my kicks out of seeing hurricanes* slam* into the shoreline, and would get that rush through seeing global warming. Hell, I hope you global warmers are right. We weather people get our high out of it, just like sky divers get theirs out of jumping out of planes.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If it stops or modifies a full blown ice age that we where starting to slip back into over the last few thousand years. Then whats the hay? I mean that would be wonderful because a full on ice age would kill billions of humans. Seriously, would you rather live like a king with human induced climate change of some kind or would you rather have another full blown ice age.
> ...




What stage am I at?

The climate has warmed by 0.7 degrees across the last 2000 years.  The climate has cooled by 1.0 degrees across the last 8000 years.  The climate has vascillated within a 2 degree range for about 12,000 years and we are currently smack dab in the middle of that range.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 1, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> *The world consensus about anthropogenic climate change*
> blah  blah blah


I have a theory , Do  you  believe Islam  has been distorted and the acts of 911  are unislamic ?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

Matthew said:


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


"When you used to say you chased tornadoes, deep down I used to believe that was just a metaphor."  Melissa from Twister


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2010)

"It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005."

One small problem. 

In the year 1800, the best they could do was measure in part per 10,000, so the 280PPM in the year 1800 is a fucking joke. 

A rounding error of even 1 part per 10,000 is equal to 30% of the baseline.

What a joke


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005."
> 
> One small problem.
> 
> ...


We can measure it today with trapped air samples from 1800.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



LOL. What a typical troll response when your bullshit gets demolished and you're shown to be a fool. Change the subject, claim victory and run away. LOLOLOL.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

code1211 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Pretentious science poseur bullshitter? That would be my guess.






code1211 said:


> The climate has warmed by 0.7 degrees across the last 2000 years.  The climate has cooled by 1.0 degrees across the last 8000 years.  The climate has vascillated(sic) within a 2 degree range for about 12,000 years and we are currently smack dab in the middle of that range.



What's your source for those figures? Or did you just pull 'em out of your ass?

My sources say different. They say there's been about a half a degree C variation up and down from the median for the last ten thousand years and we are now on a temperature trend leading to average temperatures that the Earth has not seen in millions of years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 1, 2010)

If 1998 is not beaten to the fucking ground by a new king of hottest year in recorded history within the next 5 years, then I'm going to laugh(GOING TO GET PISSED OFF IN PUNCH THE WALL). If we're getting more forcing through co2 shouldn't we not be trending upwards in global temperatures. I don't mean every year in and year out being a new record, but once every 5-10 years would be nice. Your talking 4-6c based on most global warming forecast within 90 years forecast by 2100, but that is 90 years and you're going to have to get there without the highest level of solar output in 2,000 years. I could see .5c of a degree of warming, but anymore then that? Not going to happen unless something big happens like the methane within the arctic thaws and goes crazy. That is the only way I see more then 1c of warming over the next 90 years. Being that we've warmed out of the little ice age and we supposed to be slipping back into a glacial period within the next few thousand years...It will be a challenge. 

RollingThunder:
Most of the med evil warm period maps I've ever seen show it to be close to what we have today, also 115,000 years ago is also noted as close to today. But I would say that another .5c of warming would easily put us over the med evil warm period. I have to admit that this is one of the most impressive interglacial periods within the last 2 million years and boy did humanity get lucky to be within it. Humanity would of never developed like we have without it. One of the people that I believe made that is MANN, which got caught with the hockey stick and the IPCC thrown it out(at least I believe so). Most others I've ever seen show as I said above. At least equal to todays levels. If we go any warmer then sure you may have a point.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Really?  That's the best you can do?   High schoolers can insult better than this blunder.  Try again.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Here's another part of the world scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming/climate change. One of the more ridiculous of the myths that the denier cultists believe in and try to sell is the myth that carbon dioxide isn't really a greenhouse gas and doesn't really trap more heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Since the effects of excess CO2 in the air are scientifically matters of chemistry and physics, let's see what the *American Chemical Society* has to say. 

*Global Climate Change

ACS Statement on Global Climate Change(pdf)

Summary*

The ACS statement on global climate change reviews the science and recommends action on global climate issues.

*ACS Position*

    Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earths climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

    The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.

*Climate Change Impacts*

The effects of projected unmitigated climate change on key Earth system components, ecological systems and human society over the next fifty years will be profound and, quite possibly, irreversible (IPCC, 2007). Higher surface temperatures will severely impact many land-based life forms, damaging vulnerable ecosystems and endangering key plant and animal species. Sea level is rising and the ocean is acidifying; the first threatens coastal habitations and ecosystems, the second will have profound effects on marine ecosystems. Snowfall and snowmelt patterns are changing and rainfall patterns may also be unstable, threatening fresh water supplies in vulnerable regions. Increases in severe weather events are very likely, with increasing damage due to floods, drought, and heat waves. We are, in effect, in the midst of a vast experiment with the Earths climatewith uncertain, but likely quite unpleasant, outcomes.

The costs of unchecked climate change in economic loss, human misery, and loss of ecosystem services are likely to be enormous. The United Nations Environment Programme estimated that climate change could cost world gross domestic product from $150 to $300 billion annually unless strong efforts are made by developed and developing nations to curb greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP, 2002). More recently, the Stern Review suggested that: "the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP [ca. $2 trillion] each year, now and forever" (Stern, 2007). Additional costs due to climate driven increases of refugees, illness, malnutrition, and conflicts over water, energy and food resources could easily dwarf the more easily estimated GDP losses. The costs of lost ecosystem services are difficult to compute, but may ultimately threaten the planet's capacity to sustain the current, much less the projected, population density (Daily et al, 2000).
Recommendations

1. Earth Systems Science

Successfully addressing the challenges of global climate change requires enhanced understanding of Earth system dynamics. Climate change is a very complex phenomenon involving the coupled physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the atmosphere, land surfaces and the oceans. The U.S. has been a leader in Earth system and climate change research, but funding for these activities has dropped dramatically over the past five years, slowing progress in vital areas of atmospheric chemistry, dynamics and radiation transport, cloud and aerosol chemistry and physics, ocean biogeochemistry and dynamics, glacial, ice cap and sea ice dynamics, hydrology, ecology, soil microbiology, multi-scale Earth system modeling and other key disciplines. The ability to quantify trends in climate parameters and resulting impacts on geological and ecological systems will require the enhancement and maintenance of sophisticated Earth observation satellites as well comprehensive in situ atmospheric, oceanic and ecological sensor systems.

Recommendation 1 - Re-invigorate and fully fund a comprehensive U.S. research program...(go to website for the rest)

2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Progress to reduce U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the scale and impact of accelerating climate change must start now using current technological capabilities. Opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions include enhanced fuel economy for on-road and off road vehicles, better insulated and more efficiently heated and cooled buildings, more efficient lighting, and more convenient and available mass transit.

Opportunities also exist to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion by substituting more sustainable biomass based fuels and by adopting non-combustion energy sources based on solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, wind, or tidal power. Successful deployment of enhanced energy conservation and fossil fuel substitution technologies will be expedited by increased research and development funding and shifts in government subsidies and incentives away from fossil fuel producers and users and to energy conservation efforts and more sustainable energy sources. Coal-fueled and nuclear electrical power generation systems may also be part of CO2 reduction strategies if effective and economic means to sequester CO2 emissions from coal combustion or advanced coal processing are developed for the former and if fuel diversion, spent fuel disposal, and power plant security issues are resolved for the latter.

Successful efforts to reduce petroleum and natural gas consumption through conservation or sustainable-fuel substitution will not only reduce net CO2 emissions, but also reduce reliance on fuel sources that are increasingly insecure for both economic and geopolitical reasons. Reduction in reliance on combustion driven energy systems will also contribute to both better air quality and reduced warming.

Many opportunities exist to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse emissions, including biogenic CH4 from landfills, agriculture and other land use practices and biogenic N2O from agricultural and non-agricultural fertilizer use, air pollutant deposition and waste disposal. Geological CH4 emissions associated with natural gas, petroleum and coal production, refining and distribution can also be reduced. Key knowledge needed to design, evaluate and implement better controls for theses non-CO2 greenhouse gases is likely to come from the enhanced Earth systems research called for in Recommendation 1. Reducing CH4 emissions also reduces secondary O3 and CO2 production and reducing N2O emissions reduces stratospheric ozone depletion.

It is certain that there will be no single solution to climate change challenges. Individual technologies may make more sense in particular situations or locales (e.g., solar or wind power). Others may merit national implementation (fuel efficiency standards). With adequate R&D funding, we may also be able to develop additional novel technologies and processes to mitigate climate change. For example, success in green chemistry and nanotechnology may dramatically reduce energy and materials use in the future. Several U.S. states and major municipalities have already set significant greenhouse reduction goals and implemented steps to meet them. The federal government needs to catch up with these forward-looking regions.

Enhanced research in the fields of energy efficiency and conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, climate change adaptation, pollution prevention, and carbon sequestration also serves other important national goals, including economic prosperity, a high quality of life, and environmental protection. Developing and deploying these technologies will likely reduce energy costs, increase productivity, improve the nations energy independence, improve air and water quality, and reduce environmental hazards, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Recommendation 2a  The U.S. should immediately adopt nationwide goals for rapid and deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and develop effective economic drivers to achieve these goals. Options such as emission cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, or emissions taxes need to be devised, tested and implemented on a national basis. The U.S. should work closely with all major greenhouse gas emitter nations to secure their commitment to similar greenhouse gas emission reductions.

(go to website for the rest)


Copyright ©2009 American Chemical Society

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> I got a list too...
> 
> I got mine from Chicago Carbon Exchange website... You know them they are the company Al Gore and Maurice strong are invested in... Strong being the President and former head of the UN environmental program as well...
> 
> ...



My list was bigger!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I got a list too...
> ...



LOLOLOLOL....yeah, 'bigger' and irrelevant and pointless. As might be expected from a truly retarded troll like you, slack-jawed.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


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



Oh I feel any market dedicated to trading carbon credits, chaired and invested by the ex VP and the former head of the UN environmental program, both of whom pushed and pressed for climate change legislation both national and internationally during their respective tenures is very relevant.... And only a tool socko would deny it..


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yeah but the reason you "feel" that way is because you're a retarded ideologue with your head up your ass. 

People who see the danger of anthropogenic global warming/climate change are trying to do something about it using the free market. Big whoop. Your paranoid denier cult delusions are too worthless to bother with.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



BLAH BLAH BL:AH......

All you do right there.... Cry and throw a hissy everytime you are busted... i noticed you and your pals no longer posting new threads.... LOL, whats the matter running out of reliable material??? LOL

yeah your BS is done and all you can do now is bet it all on the reactionary fear driven people watching the oil spill 24/7....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Yeah slack-jawed-troll, keep proclaiming that the Earth is flat. We'll see how that works out for you. LOLOLOLOL.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



HAHAHHAHAHHA! THanks for the admission on what I said about you...


----------



## code1211 (Jun 4, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




In the same manner as trading carbon credits, If i pay a really skinny person who has recently lost weight and I eat as much as I want, will I lose weight as a result?

So goes the logic of carbon credit trading.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade. 

However, using market forces worked with the sulphates, and were it not for some rather major feedback loops in the Arctic, would also work with CO2.

Almost all the businesses in Oregon support this bill. It will pass, once again over the screaming and puking of the Conservatives.

Hmmm.......  

New GI  Bill
Removing the Banks from the Education Loans
Health Care Bill
Two Supreme Court picks confirmed
Cap and Trade Legislation

An improving Economy.

And the Repubs are running on Drill, Baby, Drill.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 4, 2010)

I'm for total nuclear power. I believe that nuclear is a much more effective way to power our cities and a much better back ground to develop cleaner cars. Ect.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

The only problem that I have with nuclear power is the cost. 

When I was a boy, they pushed nuclear power as the power of the future that would be so cheap that they would not meter it. And it would be absolutely safe.

Reality has been it is very expensive power, and then there was the very near Chernobyle event at Three Mile Island.

The costs of various forms of generation of electricity

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554 
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481 
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317 
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552 
Wind: 8.910 
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 
Geothermal: 10.182 
Hydroelectric: 10.527 
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653 
Nuclear: 15.316 
Biomass: 16.485


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade.
> 
> However, using market forces worked with the sulphates, and were it not for some rather major feedback loops in the Arctic, would also work with CO2.
> 
> ...



Are you in favor of removing all catalytic converters which convert CO to CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 4, 2010)

Environmental Marxists have made nuclear power prohibitively expensive in the USA. France runs on nuclear energy and they run circles around us. The cost of building a reactor has increased about 20 fold. If these lunatic get their way with offshore drilling they will make that prohibitively expensive as well.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade.
> 
> However, using market forces worked with the sulphates, and were it not for some rather major feedback loops in the Arctic, would also work with CO2.
> 
> ...



Similar? how similar?

Care to elaborate the differences? how about that was small scale and state controlled, no speculators, no international trades, etc etc...

And what about those sulfates.. Aren't they the same ones some of your so-called scientists want to dump in the atmosphere now to combat AGW? LOL yeah it is.... We been over this before remember tool?

LOL too funny...


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade.
> 
> However, using market forces worked with the sulphates, and were it not for some rather major feedback loops in the Arctic, would also work with CO2.
> 
> ...




And now, a word from the real world.

We generate half of our electicity from coal.  We have more coal than than about anybody in the world.  It is cheap and it is here.

In the real world, we need to have coal converted to a form that is usable in the real world.  Chermists use oil to produce everything from lubricants to artificial hearts.  There must be similar methods to put to work for coal.

Capturing the carbon from the burning of coal cannot be an impossible thing to do.  Finding uses for the captured carbon is the way to make this happen.

If it makes financial sense to do something, then someone will do it to make money.  If it's financially stupid to do something, then the government will move in and waste money trying to do it.  Probably "for the children".


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade.
> 
> However, using market forces worked with the sulphates, and were it not for some rather major feedback loops in the Arctic, would also work with CO2.
> 
> ...




As far as I can tell both the Repubs and the Dems are running on "elect me an I'll stop Obama".  There is a huge discontent in the country because 50% to 70% of the population is against everything this man has done.

Witness Sestak who beat Obama's hand picked boy by putting distance between himself and the Big 0.


----------



## code1211 (Jun 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Environmental Marxists have made nuclear power prohibitively expensive in the USA. France runs on nuclear energy and they run circles around us. The cost of building a reactor has increased about 20 fold. If these lunatic get their way with offshore drilling they will make that prohibitively expensive as well.




The dirty little secret of the Progressive's energy plans is that it makes the cost of fuel increase.  Use the Ethanol fiasco as the model to study here.

If you're rich, no problem.  If you're poor, big problem.  No AC in the summer.  No heat in the winter.  Can't afford to drive to the job that pays little so you're on the dole.

After the taxes on cheap enegy are in place and the cost of new energy is prohibitive, then the Government will "have to" step in with more wealth re-distribution plans.  

Big, intrusive government begets bigger, more intrusive government.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 5, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We used a similiar system to acheive real progress in removing sulphate air pollution. I think that I rather just see a termination schedule for the coal burning plants, a schedule based on closing the last of them in a decade.
> ...


Moronegon... a green socialist worker's utopia.

Can't wait till Crocks gets fired thanks to his green theory, the whines will probably be ear piercing.  Probably works at a heavy polluting pulp mill and his posts here are to alleviate the guilt of his hypocrisy.  But then he can live off the gubmint like every good plebe.


----------

