# The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

*The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*

6 August 2007

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

*Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.*

The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth&#8217;s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around \sigma T^4 (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) &#8211; a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

*Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.*

The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

*Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions*

CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

*Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated*

Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the &#8216;wings&#8217; (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 &#8211; the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.

There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the &#8216;adjusted&#8217; forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the &#8216;efficacy&#8217; of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn&#8217;t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.

The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).

*Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2*

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the &#8216;fast feedbacks&#8217; have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the &#8216;slow&#8217; feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn&#8217;t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

*Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number*

Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is &#8216;in the pipeline&#8217;. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this &#8216;unrealised&#8217; forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC &#8211; i.e. 0.5 ºC.

Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

Q.E.D.?

--Gavin Schmidt - Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

RealClimate: The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> *The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*
> 
> 6 August 2007
> 
> ...



That is way too rational, scientific, and sane for the crackpot denier cultists living in their rightwingnut Bizarro-World. They would have to renounce too many of their cherished myths and fantasies. Expect massive delusional denial of reality.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 14, 2014)

Step 7: all of the above is bull shit.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2014)

There certainly is no empirical data for the above claims.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*
> ...





PredFan said:


> Step 7: all of the above is bull shit.





westwall said:


> There certainly is no empirical data for the above claims.



Right on cue, as predicted......LOLOL....

Obviously, given a choice between the reasoned, logical, science-based explanations of Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a world renowned climate scientist and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (who works "_on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases. He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of &#8220;Climate Change: Picturing the Science&#8221; (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize and was the EarthSky Science communicator of the year in 2011._"), and the demented dribblings from the mouths of ignorant, politically/economically motivated, anti-science denier cult retards like the walleyedretard and ProdFcked, all of the sane, rational, knowledgeable, intelligent people are going to accept the testimony of the scientist. Leaving all of the insane, irrational, ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, bamboozled dupes of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign to believe the retards' braindead dismissal of the facts.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 14, 2014)

Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Oooooooooooooops!!!*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 14, 2014)

The Green Agenda




*Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops*


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> That is way too rational, scientific, and sane for the crackpot denier cultists living in their rightwingnut Bizarro-World. They would have to renounce too many of their cherished myths and fantasies. Expect massive delusional denial of reality.



That's MISTER crackpot denier cultist to you, bub.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









He posted a bunch of opinion.  Opinions aren't facts.  The fact that he's a so called "world renowned" scientist merely demonstrates how pathetic climatology has become.  The fact remains that Jean Dixon...that "world renowned" though well documented charlatan, has a better prediction rate than your buddy Gavin.

That pathetic but that's who you've hung your hat on.  I'll go with people who aren't "world renowned" but do better science any day.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 14, 2014)

Table the issue for ten years even though the henny penny radicals think the sky is falling. America needs to get back on it's economic feet and we ain't gonna do it with windmills, gigantic batteries, solar panels and global extortion schemes. Go picket China.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 14, 2014)

If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 14, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> *Oooooooooooooops!!!*



Outside of Western Europe and Greenland. Exactly, what data do we have to support this? There has been a dozen proxie data sets since Mann did his supporting him.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

Kosh said:


> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..



If you'd take a long walk off a short pier, the average post's intellectual content would rise dramatically.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Table the issue for ten years even though the henny penny radicals think the sky is falling. America needs to get back on it's economic feet and we ain't gonna do it with windmills, gigantic batteries, solar panels and global extortion schemes. Go picket China.



You think America will be aided by ending our business dealings with China? 

What do you think would happen to the average American budget if the prices of everything sold at WalMart went up 20% overnight?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..
> ...





Abe s0n......how does one get so deeply entrenched in the matrix? Has there ever been even a single moment where you once questioned the validity of the msm or what the idiots in academia say??

Shit.....I remember 30 years ago being enchanted by the New York Times. Gospel shit for me a the time........carried it right there next to my Marx/Engels Reader on campus. Every day......I was far wiser than most people on campus


Here you are s0n.....wake up and smell the maple nut crunch!!! Its time........bubble-life gets too ghey after awhile


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0671201581]The History of Western Philosophy: Bertrand Russell: 9780671201586: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jun 14, 2014)

Want to solve the CO2 problem?  Raise the limit.  Problem solved.  All the rest of this is just crap.


----------



## westwall (Jun 14, 2014)

I just love how CO2 is classified as a "problem" period.  Carbon is the fundamental building block of life on this planet and no amount of the failures' rewriting history and science will ever change that.

The only CO2 "problem" is the fraudsters are still exhaling it....


----------



## Crick (Jun 15, 2014)

westwall said:


> I just love how CO2 is classified as a "problem" period.  Carbon is the fundamental building block of life on this planet and no amount of the failures' rewriting history and science will ever change that.
> 
> The only CO2 "problem" is the fraudsters are still exhaling it....



So, is that really the best you've got?

If water starts pouring under your front door, the fact that you'd die without it doesn't prevent it's presence a foot deep on your living room floor from being "a problem".

The purpose for this set of notes was to demonstrate AGW without invoking a computer model that all you deniers seem to think are the work of demons.

If you have some objective, technically supportable disagreement with any of the six point Dr Schmidt makes, let's hear 'em.  "Carbon is the building block of life" wouldn't sell a six year old.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 15, 2014)

yuk......yuk.........

Im always on the verge of splitting my sides laughing when I post up this gem!!!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PredFan (Jun 15, 2014)

westwall said:


> I just love how CO2 is classified as a "problem" period.  Carbon is the fundamental building block of life on this planet and no amount of the failures' rewriting history and science will ever change that.
> 
> The only CO2 "problem" is the fraudsters are still exhaling it....



Lol, awesome!


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I just love how CO2 is classified as a "problem" period.  Carbon is the fundamental building block of life on this planet and no amount of the failures' rewriting history and science will ever change that.
> ...








The amount of CO2 on this planet is the exact same as existed for the last 4 billion years or so.  Very little has been added from extra planetary sources so CO2 is merely being used and reused in an endless cycle.  If the atmospheric level of CO2 drops to 200ppm or less nothing grows and we all starve.  That's a fact.

I don't care to "argue" with Schmidt because he's not capable of arguing a point.  He is merely capable of talking at people.  If they have differing opinions he prevent them from being published.  In other words he's a scientific fraud.  I don't waste my time with frauds.


----------



## Crick (Jun 15, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



There is currently significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in all of human history.

There is currently significantly more CO2 in the ocean than there has been in all of human history.

You don't care to argue with Schmidt because he's got more smarts in last night's nail clipping of his left little toe than you've had in your entire body over your entire life.

And everyone here knows that for a fact.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 15, 2014)

Did Westwall really just say that the amount of CO2 on earth was constant? Wow.

Check it out, folks. We've got a geologist who doesn't know the difference between CO2 and carbonate minerals.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...








And I say so what.  CO2 LAGS warmth by HUNDREDS of years, and that precludes man having any major impact on the global CO2 budget.  That's a fact.  CO2 levels are the highest in mans history?  So what, man has been around on this planet for less time the a gnats fart in the overall scheme of things.  

I find it terribly amusing that you people who claim to think, and understand science,  ignore the fact that this planet operates on a time scale that is so long that clearly your tiny little minds can't conceive it.  It's like explaining the difference in dog years to human years to you....and you not getting it.

And yes, you can suck ol' Schmitty's cock all you like, it doesn't negate the fact that he is a fraud.


----------



## westwall (Jun 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Did Westwall really just say that the amount of CO2 on earth was constant? Wow.
> 
> Check it out, folks. We've got a geologist who doesn't know the difference between CO2 and carbonate minerals.






Yeah, I was in a rush and meant to say CARBON, that's why I mentioned the recycling part.  Thinking people could make the leap, clearly that demonstrates one of your many shortcomings.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 16, 2014)

Big Black Dog said:


> Want to solve the CO2 problem?  Raise the limit.  Problem solved.  All the rest of this is just crap.



Why don't you pass a law making Pi equal to exactly three, while you're at it. LOL.

Are you really dumber than a retarded dog?


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> And I say so what.  CO2 LAGS warmth by HUNDREDS of years, and that precludes man having any major impact on the global CO2 budget.  That's a fact.  CO2 levels are the highest in mans history?  So what, man has been around on this planet for less time the a gnats fart in the overall scheme of things.



That you would join your unwashed brethren in this basic and fundamental logical error is telling.  That increased temperatures cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 traps infrared and thus that increasing its level in the atmosphere will increase temperatures.  NONE.  I  (and several others) have challenged this point on more than a dozen occasions and NOT ONCE has any denier ever come back and attempted to defend the point as it will bear none.  That you would bring out this argument is either a convincing argument for your own ignorance or proof that logic holds a second candle to your need to maintain a preconceived but unsupportable position.  But surprise us.  Come back and defend this position.  EXPLAIN to us how the geological record - with its rather severe paucity of evidence for human CO2 emissions - proves that CO2 cannot cause warming.  Show us the logic you see there.  Because the rest of us are having a little trouble with that point.



westwall said:


> I find it terribly amusing that you people who claim to think, and understand science,  ignore the fact that this planet operates on a time scale that is so long that clearly your tiny little minds can't conceive it.  It's like explaining the difference in dog years to human years to you....and you not getting it.



I find it terribly sad that you, again, either fail to get a very basic point or find that your need to support your preconceived point of view requires you to abandon logic.  The concern here is the well being of humans in our contemporary culture.  Arguing that we should not worry, for example, that all the oxygen in our atmosphere was going to vanish because the Earth spent over a billion years in such a condition, is not a great comfort.



westwall said:


> And yes, you can suck ol' Schmitty's cock all you like, it doesn't negate the fact that he is a fraud.



And this, of course, marks you as being exactly as puerile as your ridiculously flawed arguments would make you out to be.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Check it out, folks. We've got a geologist who doesn't know the difference between CO2 and carbonate minerals.
> ...



While that bit of obvious backpedaling on your part corrects your original stupidity, it unfortunately for you introduces new stupidity.



> Thinking people could make the leap, clearly that demonstrates one of your many shortcomings.



Please explain to us why a constant amount of carbon is relevant to the topic in any way, given that "carbon" is not a greenhouse gas.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And I say so what.  CO2 LAGS warmth by HUNDREDS of years, and that precludes man having any major impact on the global CO2 budget.  That's a fact.  CO2 levels are the highest in mans history?  So what, man has been around on this planet for less time the a gnats fart in the overall scheme of things.
> ...








I am terribly saddened that you have fallen for a "simple" theory because "simple" theories(like the "simple" experiments used to demonstrate them) are grand theatre for the morons who are fooled by them, but the real world is neither "simple" nor forgiving.

Your theory is an abject failure.  It has been proven so over this last 20 year period where CO2 levels have exploded and the temps haven't.

You lose.


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








Please refer to the "thinking people" part and knock yourself out.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



More delusional nonsense from the walleyed simpleton.

The heating of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans and ice has continued to increase over this century at about the same rate or faster than the rate of warming in the 1980s and 90s, in spite of the demented denier cult myths that ol' walleyed clings to like grim death.

*Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows*
13 November 2013

*Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated*
13 June 2014 

*Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows*
10 December 2013

*Global warming continues with no slow down
*
March 27, 2013

*Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating*
12/31/2013 

*New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated*
25 March 2013 

*Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail*
17 April 2013

*In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms*
MARCH 25, 2013

*UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES*
July 3, 2013

*Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State*
December 5th, 2012

*New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought*
MAR 27, 2013

*Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists*
ABC News Video

GLOBALLY.....

** Sixteen years ago 1998 became the hottest year on record by a considerable margin.

* Currently 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, in records going back to the 1800s. 

* 2013 was the fourth hottest year on record.

* The last decade was the hottest decade on record, as was the decade before that and the decade before that, in turn. 

* All of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. 

* The coldest years since 1998 are still hotter than all of the hottest years before 1998. 

* This last November 2013 was the hottest November on record globally.

* This last April 2014 was the hottest April on record globally.

* This last April was the 350th consecutive month with global average temperatures higher than the average temperature for that month, averaged over the entire twentieth century.

* The Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away.

* Large areas northern permafrost are still rapidly melting.

* Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at increasing rates.

* The large majority of mountain glaciers are still rapidly melting and disappearing.

* Sea levels are still rising at an accelerating rate.*


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And I say so what.  CO2 LAGS warmth by HUNDREDS of years, and that precludes man having any major impact on the global CO2 budget.  That's a fact.  CO2 levels are the highest in mans history?  So what, man has been around on this planet for less time the a gnats fart in the overall scheme of things.
> ...



*That you would join your unwashed brethren in this basic and fundamental logical error is telling. That increased temperatures cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 traps infrared and thus that increasing its level in the atmosphere will increase temperatures. *

If that's the case, why have temperatures apparently paused their unavoidable, mankind destroying rise, recently?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data*

Is it lousy because you haven't had a chance yet to "adjust" it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 16, 2014)

We need more abortions not less.  Humans ? the real threat to life on Earth | Environment | The Observer


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 16, 2014)

The other day I saw that human's give off more CO2 or Sulfur than all the volcano's on earth.  But when I tried to find proof of that on the web, I couldn't find shit.  So people don't even realize how bad things are.   This is why human's don't deserve this planet and it will be much better off and so will all the other animals that survive when we destroy this planet for humans.  Cockroaches will be happy we are gone.

Personally Id be more inclined to believe the United States Geological Survey and on this page they address the specific question Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007... 

The conclusion  volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annuallythe global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



And once again, when confronted with evidence that he has been lied to by his rightwing puppetmasters, and that his denier cult myths are fraudulent bullshit, ToadtheParrot demonstrates what a confused retard he is by grasping at imaginary straws.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Quick, how many trillions should we waste on "green energy" to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees?


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?

How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?


----------



## westwall (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?







Significantly less than the 76 trillion (estimated...and we ALL know how accurate government estimates are...don't we) you guys want to spend to fundamentally change the energy systems of the world.


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible.  But the debate is pointless.  Far too much of the world is as stupid and as lazy as are you.  No one is going to act in time to accomplish anything.  Human culture will feel the full brunt of it's errors.  You should be pleased.  Billions will suffer.  At least hundreds of thousands will die.  But at least the fossil fuel industry will get to sell every last drop it sucks from the Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?



Why would we have to relocate anyone?

Obama stopped the rise of the oceans, just by getting the Dem nomination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible.  But the debate is pointless.  Far too much of the world is as stupid and as lazy as are you.  No one is going to act in time to accomplish anything.  Human culture will feel the full brunt of it's errors.  You should be pleased.  Billions will suffer.  At least hundreds of thousands will die.  But at least the fossil fuel industry will get to sell every last drop it sucks from the Earth.



*I guarantee you it would be cheaper to deal with the problem as early as possible.*

"We must heat our homes in winter with windmills and solar, because in 2080, things will get bad. No really! My reconstructed data proves it"

"97% of scientists agree"

Wow! 97% of a million scientists?

"No"

97% of 100,000 scientists?

"No"

97% of how many?

"77"


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

I told you you'd be happy.


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


News flash:  You don't have the authority to speak for everyone here.  You may speak for your fellow Borg hive-minders, but not for normal people.


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The other day I saw that human's give off more CO2 or Sulfur than all the volcano's on earth.  But when I tried to find proof of that on the web, I couldn't find shit.  So people don't even realize how bad things are.   This is why human's don't deserve this planet and it will be much better off and so will all the other animals that survive when we destroy this planet for humans.  Cockroaches will be happy we are gone.
> 
> Personally Id be more inclined to believe the United States Geological Survey and on this page they address the specific question Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007...
> 
> The conclusion  volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annuallythe global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.



I'm not offing myself out of some moonbat romantic view of Gaea.  You go ahead.


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from running short on drinking water?
> 
> How much should you spend to prevent a billion people from going hungry?


Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can save us.


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

Where in heaven's name do you get that idea (the one about which you're being sarcastic)?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2014)

All this because the laboratory is so consistently cruel to their theory


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where in heaven's name do you get that idea (the one about which you're being sarcastic)?


From Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​You are tremendously ignorant about your cult.  But then, if you were intelligent and educated, you wouldn't be in the cult, would you?


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

What are you talking about?


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> What are you talking about?



It really is simple.  Pay attention.

The AGW cult has nothing to do with the environment.  Its desired end state is greater and greater government control over individual lives, and ultimately, forced world socialism.  Envoronmentalism is merely a thin veneer, a façade to lure in the simple-minded (Hint: You) so they do their cult leaders' bidding.  Voting as they're told, for instance.   

As Edenhofer said, the connection with environmentalism and international climate policy is illusory.  It's economic policy, pure and simple.  Ceding more and more power to government.  

"It's for the children!!" is a tagline for the suckers.  You're being used, and you don't have the wit to recognize it.

I'd tell you to wake up, but you're enjoying the dream too much.


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.

As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all.  He's an economist. He is not a government official.  He holds no elected office.  No one is taking direction from him.  Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy.  And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything.  So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant.  I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems.  I don't even think it would be helpful.  And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism.  He spoke about redistributing wealth.  Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production.  Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage.  Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy.  That doesn't make anyone socialist.

It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.


----------



## daveman (Jun 16, 2014)

Crick said:


> My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.
> 
> As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all.  He's an economist. He is not a government official.  He holds no elected office.  No one is taking direction from him.  Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy.  And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything.  So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant.  I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems.  I don't even think it would be helpful.  And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism.  He spoke about redistributing wealth.  Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production.  Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage.  Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy.  That doesn't make anyone socialist.


Global welfare.  That sounds grand, doesn't it?  And by the way -- it's socialism.


Crick said:


> It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.


Proper governance requires the minimum amount of government interference in people's lives conducive with civilized society.  Ensure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed or fail.  When government meddles and starts picking winners, it does far more harm than good -- unless you think Obama flushing half a billion dollars down the Solyndra toilet was a rousing success.  Wouldn't put it past you.  

But I'm guessing you see a far more active role for government in people's lives.  For their own good, of course.

Meanwhile, look around you.  Look at what the green movement is pushing.  You'll see I'm right -- if you're strong enough to walk away from the cult.


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2014)

What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.







What we see is you are intellectually dishonest and no amount of factual information will sway you from your religious fanaticism.  No biggie, we understand you are terrified of blaspheming....most religious nutters are.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.
> ...


LOLOLOL.......that's a hoot.....you have no "_factual information_" and no intellect, walleyed.....all you have are fraudulent denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories.....you're a gullible bamboozled anti-science retard with your head firmly wedged up your asshole.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 17, 2014)

And it is the AGW cult that made CO2 a pollutant.

Even though man only contributes about 1% of the total.

Pollution does not equal "Global Warming".


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

Westwall, were you under the impression that in our debate over socialism and the wisdom of spending real money to save the world, that  Daveman was throwing factual information at me?

If so, you need to reread the thread.

It's almost funny that you folks can go to such lengths to accuse mainstream science of the intellectual flaws you yourselves exhibit to the Nth degree.  It tells us that you deniers know you're making poor choices.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> What I see is that you're a libertarian anarchist who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.


I am neither a libertarian nor an anarchist.  You fail.

I give a shit about everybody.  That's why I oppose progressivism.  It's an evil, murderous philosophy that's failed spectacularly and with lakes of blood wherever it's gone unchecked.

Your own willfully-small world view does not define reality.  You should probably accept that.  Right now.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

Unlike you, reality defines my worldview.  You seem to think things work in the other direction.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

Why isn't this in the religious section?


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Unlike you, reality defines my worldview.  You seem to think things work in the other direction.


Really?  Then you believe that deliberately dropping weather stations in cold areas from your datasets is an accurate representation of reality?

http://www.climategate.com/climatologists-drop-806-cold-weather-stations-in-a-single-year
Chiefio reports that 806 weather stations were dropped from the total of 6000 worldwide temperature stations in a single year with no explanation from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) data. GHCN is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the National Climatic Data Center, Arizona State University and the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Absent any public statement from climatolgists for such a strange act, I can only speculate that this a deliberate attempt to cause an artificial warming of the data set. I can think of no other valid scientific reason.​REAL scientists want as much data as they can get.  Climate "scientists" only want data that support their predetermined conclusion.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> And it is the AGW cult that made CO2 a pollutant.


Your usual utterly insane comment.

Actually, it is the laws of physics that made CO2 a greenhouse gas and made greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere.








Kosh said:


> Even though man only contributes about 1% of the total.


Wrong again, retard. Mankind has increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43% so far (and still rising fast), from about 280ppm pre-industrial to the current level of a little over 400ppm. Isotope analysis of the extra carbon dioxide indicates that it is sourced from the fossil fuels.







Kosh said:


> Pollution does not equal "Global Warming".


It does if the "pollution" is a powerful greenhouse gas like CO2 that causes global warming.

Your denial of science and the facts is just another indication that you are an insane retard.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Why isn't this in the religious section?


Why aren't you in a straitjacket in an insane asylum? Dd you escape?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Actually, it is the laws of physics that made CO2 a greenhouse gas and made greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere.


Which law applies?

CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR AS GREENHOUSE GASES
METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. 

Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal. 



Iceweasel said:


> Why isn't this in the religious section?





> Why aren't you in a straitjacket in an insane asylum? Dd you escape?


The Warmer Moonies wouldn't let me in without a Carbon Pass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.
> 
> As for Edenhofer's comment, you make the mistake of believing the man has any power at all.  He's an economist. He is not a government official.  He holds no elected office.  No one is taking direction from him.  Even the IPCC as a whole has no power to set policy.  And, as we have all seen, it has done a very poor job at convincing anyone to do much of anything.  So, Edenhofer's comments are irrelevant.  I don't believe socialism is required to solve our climate problems.  I don't even think it would be helpful.  And then there's the point that Edenhofer never actually said anything about socialism.  He spoke about redistributing wealth.  Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production.  Edenhofer was pointing out that wealthy nations have caused climate warming and will end up paying to prevent or repair the damage.  Poor nations will not be forced to pay and will benefit from the payments of the wealthy.  That doesn't make anyone socialist.
> 
> It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.



You have no experiments, correct? You've never shown us how 120PPM of CO2 will raise temperature, correct?

An official from the IPCC, Edenhofer, said AGW was a scam to redistribute wealth and he was right.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it is the laws of physics that made CO2 a greenhouse gas and made greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere.
> ...


And stuff like this is why everybody can see that you're a retard, shitweasel.

Pointing out that both CO2 and water vapor are greenhouse gases doesn't magically make CO2 not a greenhouse gas. While it is true that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere, it is also true that because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and water vapor doesn't, increased CO2 is the forcing that causes temperature increases while water vapor is the feedback that responds to higher temperatures and amplifies the warming produced by the CO2.

*Greenhouse gas*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).[2][3][4]

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012.[5][6] and has now reached 400 ppm in the northern hemisphere. This increase has occurred despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions by various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[7][8] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, and natural gas.[9] Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth and the livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide.[10] Greenhouse gases also trigger ocean bio-geochemical changes with broad ramifications in marine systems.[11]*










Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Well, that statement means that you are REALLY insane, shitweasel. Not that you hadn't already made that crystal clear.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media and so the news isn't telling people the truth because they don't want to seem bias.  They just report facts.  "The Planet Is Heating Up" but they won't admit the impact cars and corporate smokestacks are having on the planet.  They can't.  Those are their advertisers and CEO's and they know the CEO's and Board of Directors of other companies.  It's a good old boys club.  And lobbyists.

The other reason they get away with it is why change?  They are still winning elections denying it and fighting healthcare reform and everything else they do because they have enough of us with bullshit wedge issues.  How many poor people vote GOP because of god, gays, racism and guns?  They even have the gun and god freaks arguing IN FAVOR OF GLOBAL WARMING AND WAR and anything else they want to do.  And how do they get their message out?  The corporate media.  Fox and Rush are the big 2.  Wake up America.  If you are not rich you are a N(#$*r to the Republicans.  

How many stupid fucking union workers in Michigan didn't show up to vote or voted for Rick Snyder?  You all deserve what you got.  How many people won't show up these midterms?  Fuck you all if you don't care about yourselves why should I?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How much should you spend to prevent having to relocate several hundred million people?
> ...


 
 How long do you think people can survive in deserts without water and food?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

Google Search: experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers pH from 8.25 to 8.15

About 470 results

LOL.

All those billion spend of climate "Research" 

LOL


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


I posted the opinion of a meteorologist that explained it better than I could. Since you weren't able to process the info, he said said CO2s were insignificant in warming the atmosphere. Sorry.




Iceweasel said:


> Why isn't this in the religious section?





> Why aren't you in a straitjacket in an insane asylum? Dd you escape?


The Warmer Moonies wouldn't let me in without a Carbon Pass.[/QUOTE]


> Well, that statement means that you are REALLY insane, shitweasel. Not that you hadn't already made that crystal clear.


They said they have a jacket with your name on it and have been trying to reach you through group meditation. Uhm...or was that medication?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > My "What are you talking about?" comment was aimed at Crusader Frank.
> ...



If you believe that fighting greed is akin to socialism, then call it what you will. I have to really ask you conservative nitwits, though - what would your Jesus do? Do you believe he would approve of the current level of greed in the world?



Crick said:


> It almost seems as if you believe proper governance requires some amount of poverty.





			
				daveman said:
			
		

> Proper governance requires the minimum amount of government interference in people's lives conducive with civilized society. Ensure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed or fail. When government meddles and starts picking winners, it does far more harm than good -- unless you think Obama flushing half a billion dollars down the Solyndra toilet was a rousing success. Wouldn't put it past you.



Erm, when fat cat CEOs are making 2,000+ times what their employees make, what opportunities to succeed to you really believe those workers have? When 1% of the world's population possesses 90% of the world's wealth, what chance to you believe the 99% actually has to succeed?

The government has already selected the winners. The winners are those with the deepest pockets, and they have already bought the government. Speaking of wasting money, what is your opinion of the 5 billion dollars that the Bush Administration shipped to Iraq that simply vanished, and is STILL unaccounted for?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media ....


Sorry, I couldn't make it past that. You have entered into the flat Earth category.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Google Search: experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers pH from 8.25 to 8.15
> 
> About 470 results
> 
> ...



Yea when we already know jesus is coming soon right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media ....
> ...



Really?  Well how do you explain that just like they got Clinton to sign NAFTA they also got him to sign this:  

Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is/was just as bad as Citizens United.  Allowed big major corporations to buy up all our media.  Now they can control the message.

If you don't see it then maybe it's you that is


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


 
 You posted the opinion of Jeff Haby, a conservative broadcast meteorologist, not a climate scientist.  Next.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media ....
> ...



You do understand that our government is completely corrupt right?  How else can you explain that from the moment they get into office they spend 4 days out of every week running around trying to get enough money so they can run again in 4 years and the spend 1 day on us and they take 2 days off.  It's a joke.

So either you are super rich or you are one of the stupid middle class or poor voters they fool into voting for them over god, gays, racism and guns.  What's your wedge issues?  I bet I find a pattern.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



How many trillions should we spend to prevent "deserts without water and food"?

When we're done, will CO2 be 550 ppm, instead of 560 ppm? 

Will the "global temperature" be 0.1 degrees lower or 0.2 degrees lower?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media and so the news isn't telling people the truth because they don't want to seem bias.  They just report facts.  "The Planet Is Heating Up" but they won't admit the impact cars and corporate smokestacks are having on the planet.  They can't.  Those are their advertisers and CEO's and they know the CEO's and Board of Directors of other companies.  It's a good old boys club.  And lobbyists.
> 
> The other reason they get away with it is why change?  They are still winning elections denying it and fighting healthcare reform and everything else they do because they have enough of us with bullshit wedge issues.  How many poor people vote GOP because of god, gays, racism and guns?  They even have the gun and god freaks arguing IN FAVOR OF GLOBAL WARMING AND WAR and anything else they want to do.  And how do they get their message out?  The corporate media.  Fox and Rush are the big 2.  Wake up America.  If you are not rich you are a N(#$*r to the Republicans.
> 
> How many stupid fucking union workers in Michigan didn't show up to vote or voted for Rick Snyder?  You all deserve what you got.  How many people won't show up these midterms?  Fuck you all if you don't care about yourselves why should I?



*Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming? *

How much of the warming since the end of the LIA is human responsibility? 
To the nearest 0.1 degrees?

Thanks!


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media ....
> ...



Let me explain why the media seems liberal to you.  Ready?  They use wedge issues to divide the middle class votes.  Racism, God, Gays and Guns.  So the "liberal" media promotes those topics.  The show may be pro gay but that gets you to show up and vote doesn't it?  It may be pro choice but that gets you to vote, right?  They may seem to be anti guns but where does that get us?  

None of those things really matter though do they really?  As long as the media doesn't report that Bush was warned about 9-11.  As long as they don't report that Bush lied us into Iraq.  As long as they don't explain exactly how Bush's policies from 2000-2006 are what put us in the poor house.  I know it's not that easy but you know what I mean.  

You never hear pro union stories.  The media wasn't kind to the 99%'ers or Wallsteet protesters.  The rest of the country really doesn't know how horrible Scott Walker has been to democracy, or Rick Snyder.  He gave corporations huge tax breaks and now he says he has to raise our taxes.  Who owns the fucking Detroit News?  Wake up stupid.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 17, 2014)

daveman said:


> Chiefio reports that



Chiefo reports a wacky conspiracy theory. We know it's a wacky conspiracy theory because those "dropped" stations showed, on the average, _more_ warming than the stations that are still operating.

It's amusing, how badly most deniers misunderstand the science here. They actually think removing stations from cooler locations would make the trend look warmer. I could explain to them why that's not the case, but I'd rather watch them flail about and create various other conspiracy theories first.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




 What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year?  Will it happen suddenly, or gradually over many years?  And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do?  It took decades to reach the point we are at today.  It will take many more decades to reverse the damage.  To my mind, doing nothing is not an option.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*What do you think will be the climatic response of significantly reducing the 30 billion tons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere each year? *

When will that number be even slightly reduced? 
How many trillions does the US have to spend to make up for next years increase from China and India?

*And if it is not suddenly, does that mean it is not worth it to our children and grandchildren to do?*

It is not worth it to our children and grandchildren if we ruin our economy and go ever deeper into debt for an unmeasureable decrease in future temperatures.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Do you all know how the GOP gets away with denying human responsibility for Global Warming?  Because for one they have purchased the so called "liberal" media and so the news isn't telling people the truth because they don't want to seem bias.  They just report facts.  "The Planet Is Heating Up" but they won't admit the impact cars and corporate smokestacks are having on the planet.  They can't.  Those are their advertisers and CEO's and they know the CEO's and Board of Directors of other companies.  It's a good old boys club.  And lobbyists.
> ...



Huh?  All I know is I heard that if you add up all the co2 or sulfur that human's are putting out every day we are putting up more pollution co2 or sulfer than all the volcano's now.  

We need to exterminate global warming deniers like we did back in Salem to the crazy witches.  If they burn they weren't republicans and if they don't they are witches.  Either way they dumb.  Or maybe Jesus will do as predicted and come take them home.  

But you know what the funny thing is?  When you can no longer deny GW, and that day was about a couple years ago, then you guys start arguing with us about the solution.  Why do we even listen to you?  Oh yea, because of the lobbyists who own our politicians.  I forget.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If we don't go green, the only solution for the planet is the either full out or near extinction of man.  This planet will turn back into paradise if there are only a few million humans still alive all across the globe.  

Think about the bears, cougars, deer, bison, wolves, fish, birds, etc.  This planet will turn back into paradise when the masses are all gone.  I wish I had a big underground fortress so I could survive it and live in it.  A bunch of distilled water and canned goods.  I would loot homes for their can goods.  I'd fish.  I'd hunt with all the guns my fellow Americans left behind.  I am grateful for them because I don't know how to make a gun, forge steel, make a telephone.  Hell I probably couldn't even make a fire without human flint rocks or magnifying glass or a lighter.  

I can't wait to see Planet of the Apes.  I bet it was nice after they got rid of humans.  I root for the apes.  Did you see the preview?  Their advantage is they don't need electricity, fire, shelter, light, guns.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


You are sorry, that's for sure. 

The actual scientists who study all of the different aspects of the climate and atmospheric physics are virtually unamamous in saying that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that the 43% increase that mankind has caused is heating the planet. You find a wacko rightwing meteorologist from Texas who disagrees with the rest of the scientific community and who also has this oh-so-scientific material on his website.

*DOES GOD CONTROL THE WEATHER?

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY

A. Possible reasons that God does control the weather:

1. An all knowing being must know how to control the weather. Since the weather is there He must be controlling it.

2. It is possible that there are extra dimensions in which the weather can be controlled but we can not tell. It is impossible to have a perfect analysis and perfect atmospheric model in our dimension but perhaps there are other dimensions this can be done from.

3. If God can control any other aspect of our lives then it must be possible that He can control the weather.

4. Since there is existence that we sense, then there is an ultimate reason for this existence (a creator). An entity with that power will have the power to control the weather. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



*All I know is I heard that if you add up all the co2 or sulfur that human's are putting out every day we are putting up more pollution co2 or sulfer than all the volcano's now. *

It's true, it takes a lot of energy to run an advanced society.

*We need to exterminate global warming deniers like we did back in Salem to the crazy witches. *

Da, kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

*But you know what the funny thing is? *

Your idiocy.

*When you can no longer deny GW*

Why would I deny it? Without global warming, my back yard in Chicago would be buried under a mile of ice.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



*the 43% increase that mankind has caused is heating the planet.*

What's the average global temperature now? How do you know?

What would it be if we had never used fossil fuels? How do you know?

Thanks in advance. Please show all your work.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Unlike you, reality defines my worldview.  You seem to think things work in the other direction.








Then why is reality not supporting your theory


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







Ask the Bedouin, they've been doing it for centuries.....hell, millennia.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Well known charlatans like Jean Dixon have superior predictive rates than your "climatologists".  Next.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








And the progressive environazi bares his soul for all to see.  Yes, kill a few billion people and all will be well!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > How long do you think people can survive in deserts without water and food?
> ...



Soooo insane!!!

So the "_Bedouin_" have been living "_without food and water_" for millennia, eh walleyed? LOLOL. If you're not already in an insane asylum, you should be, since you are so out of touch with reality.

In the real world, that you and the other denier cultists have obviously gotten a divorce from, this is what is really happening....

*Food and Water Shortages May Prove Major Risks of Climate Change
Poor people will suffer the most, unless the world exploits vanishing opportunities to adapt*
Scientific American
By David Biello
Mar 30, 2014 
*The rich play with fire and the poor get burned. That sums up a report issued March 31 by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the worsening risks of climate change. Yet even rich nations will face serious challenges. "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by climate change," said IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri at a press conference releasing the report in Yokohama, Japan.

According to Pachauri and the hundreds of scientists who prepared the report, climate change is no longer something that will happen in the future. It is already here, and it is already impacting people on all seven continents and seven seas. The world now has a different climate than it had only a few decades ago, thanks to fossil fuel burning, forest clearing and other human activities.

As a result, the need for nations everywhere to adapt is already here, according to the report of the second team of IPCC scientists (known as Working Group II), who assessed more than 12,000 scientific papers to deliver an authoritative consensus on the impacts of climate change, the vulnerabilities of society and the natural world, as well as how we might adapt to a changed climate. "We see impacts from the equators to the poles and the coast to the mountains," noted biologist Christopher Field of Stanford University, co-chair of Working Group II at the press event.

The opportunity to prevent catastrophic global warming has not disappeared, even if the world has burned through half the fossil fuels it can, according to the first team of IPCC scientists who assessed the fundamental physics of climate change and released their report in September. But the world must drop its carbon habit soon. Since 1880, 531 gigatons of carbon have been emitted, and the IPCC scientists estimate that no more than 800 gigatons should be emitted for a better-than-even chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. If warming rises beyond that threshold, the scientists say, serious harm will be done to ecosystems and societies everywhere. The more warming, the greater the risk of "severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts," the new report states.

Unfortunately, in just the time between this report and the last iteration in 2007, climate change has grown 40 percent stronger thanks to ever increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Already, the world has warmed 0.85 degree C since 1880. Global warming is now "unequivocal" and concentrations of CO2 have reached levels "unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years." Or as Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organzation put it at the press conference: "Ignorance is no longer an excuse. We know."

In that light, climate change becomes a risk management proposition, particularly given the uncertainty about exactly how bad impacts might become and when. The worst risks include sea level rise for small islands and coasts, flooding, the breakdown of infrastructure in the face of extreme weather, loss of livelihoods for farmers and fishers, food insecurity and heat-wave deaths. Expect a big demand for energy for air conditioning as the 21st century continues.

Some of these impacts are already here, from a meltdown of polar ice and glaciers everywhere to higher rates of sea level rise than the IPCC predicted in the past. Crops, such as wheat and maize (corn), have been hurt more by heat waves and drought than helped by higher levels of CO2, which can sometimes permit more luxuriant plant growth. Some crop yields in places like northern Europe and southeastern South America where drought has not set in have actually improved.

The bad outweighs the good to date. Reductions in yields of wheat and maize have already had an impact on food prices, and some argue on the stability of nations as well. Extreme weatherfrom floods to wildfirescontinues to take an increasing toll, and climate change will likely exacerbate existing health problems such as malaria and heat stroke. The biggest impact may prove to be changes to the availability of fresh water. All of these hazards, laid out in detail in the new report, afflict the poorest the most, particularly subsistence farmers throughout the world who depend on consistent rains for adequate food. "They are threatened in their very existence," Pachauri argued at the press conference.

Climate change will also raise the risk of conflict, whether civil war or fights between nation states over critical resources or boundaries, according to the new report. In short, climate change will make remedying existing poverty that much harder.

Opportunities still exist for adaptation, however. Communities, cities, states and nations have begun to adapt, whether improved water management in San Diego, Calif., or planting mangroves to stabilize seashores in the island nation of Tuvalu. Cimate change can be ameliorated both by cutting back on the pollution that causes it as well as by improving society to decrease vulnerability.

Future adaptation may include, for the poorest people, moving, either voluntarily or when displaced by disaster. And how societies choose to adapt will be vital as certain choicesgeoengineering with artificial volcanoes or building sea walls, for examplemay prove maladaptive in the long term.

The natural world has had to adapt as well, with animals and even plants moving or shifting seasonal behaviors or migration. Some marine animals have shifted their range by as much as 400 kilometers in pursuit of equally cold climes, and ocean acidification is accelerating. As the climate continues to change, species will face even greater challenges, and many may go extinct as global warming tips them into disaster when paired with other threats such as habitat loss. Entire ecosystems will be transformed, like the march of shrubs into the former tundra of Siberia and North America. "We may already be on the threshold or over the threshold of the sixth mass extinction in earth's history," Field noted.

Undercutting the optimism for ongoing adaptation is the fact that the IPCC has consistently underestimated the speed and scale of climate change. Continuing to improve the data about impacts is an ongoing challenge for the scientific community. And, in the larger view, as co-chair Field put it in his speech to open the session finalizing the new report: "Dealing effectively with climate change is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century."*


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


What are your credentials? 

Meteorologist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 Definition of METEOROLOGY
1
:  a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting 



NEXT.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> The actual scientists who study all of the different aspects of the climate and atmospheric physics are virtually unamamous in saying that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that the 43% increase that mankind has caused is heating the planet.


Bullshit.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Wow, so much hate and vitriol wrapped up in such a dense package. That takes talent! 

Sorta like telling an Imam that Muhammad was a fraud and a pedophile.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Right.  If I want the weather forecast, I'll give him a call.  If I need brain surgery, I'll call a neurosurgeon.  If I want to know something about climate, I'll consult a climatologist.  You people seem to think if a person has some random degree, say, in horticulture, that makes them an expert in some other random discipline, say, atomic energy.  If only life worked that way, we'd all be living the conservative 1950 dream portrayed on black and white television.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



 That's great.  I can't wait for you to offer up her next 'prediction' as your denial evidence.  That will be loads of fun.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No sir, they have not been living without food and water for centuries, much less for millenia, you friggin moron.  That said, the fact that you apparently believe that kind of lifestyle to be the ultimate goal of modern civilization tells me everything I need to know about your level of intelligence (don't worry, we can all go live as camel herders in Utah if we have to).  Congratulations.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 17, 2014)

This thread is further proof that AGW is a religion not based on any real science.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Since you are the one who is arguing that we will or have to ruin our economy in order to reduce emissions, perhaps you and westwall could consult Jean Dixon and maybe she could give us some inkling from her tea leaves exactly how that will happen.

 The argument that we can't reduce our emissions because of something China and India are or may do is specious at best, and is a great example of poor leadership.  If Thomas Jefferson had opposed the revolutionary war because, well the King of Sweden never recommended it, where would we be today?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> This thread is further proof that AGW is a religion not based on any real science.



Well, that settles it. He proved it so I am convinced.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait. I'm not...


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Right.  If I want the weather forecast, I'll give him a call.  If I need brain surgery, I'll call a neurosurgeon.  If I want to know something about climate, I'll consult a climatologist.  You people seem to think if a person has some random degree, say, in horticulture, that makes them an expert in some other random discipline, say, atomic energy.  If only life worked that way, we'd all be living the conservative 1950 dream portrayed on black and white television.


So you don't believe a meteorologist knows anything about the climate and how it operates? Oh wow, looks like you need at least a college degree to become a climatologist. 

How to Become a Climatologist: Education and Career Roadmap
Job Requirements

A bachelor's degree is the minimum required education to become a climatologist, and if you want to attain a high-level research position or teach at the postsecondary level, you'll need a master's or PhD in the field.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> This thread is further proof that AGW is a religion not based on any real science.



Your insane responses are further proof that you are severely retarded and extremely ignorant.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



He must have had a rich daddy. That is the only explanation for how this moron ever graduated from kindergarten.  Why is it when you roll the rock over from which we find so many of these people, we find a conservative evangelical Christian (usually also a creationist)?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Right. If I want the weather forecast, I'll give him a call. If I need brain surgery, I'll call a neurosurgeon. If I want to know something about climate, I'll consult a climatologist. You people seem to think if a person has some random degree, say, in horticulture, that makes them an expert in some other random discipline, say, atomic energy. If only life worked that way, we'd all be living the conservative 1950 dream portrayed on black and white television.
> ...



Sure, some meteorologists are very knowledgeable with regard to the planet.  A man I've known for many years, Dr. Tom Wills, is one of them.  He is a retired broadcast meteorologist from WAVE television, in Louisville, Kentucky.  He was also physics professor at the University of Louisville who taught climatology.  Got anything like that???


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don&#8217;t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the &#8220;Comply with Kyoto&#8221; model. The scientists in this group &#8220;express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.&#8221;

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

*CO2 in One Easy Step*

Show us a lab experiment where a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature AND lowers Ocean pH and you'll finally have something to talk about


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...









"You tell 'em Old Roc...er I mean Oregano-man!"


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


It doesn't matter what his credentials are, nutwad. What matters is the difference between the expertise and knowledge of the PhD climate scientists who study all of the aspects of long term climate and atmospheric physics, and the meteorologists with a BS or MS who study short term weather patterns. The fact that you imagine that the claims of a Texas nutbagger weatherman somehow trump the consensus of the world scientific community is a negative reflection on your intelligence (or lack of).

*Why Some Meteorologists Still Deny Global Warming*
MotherJones
By Chris Mooney
Dec. 4, 2013 
*Just before Thanksgiving, many conservatives seized on a new study examining the climate views of members of the American Meteorological Society. It's no secret that there's a schism between climate scientists and weather forecasters over climate change, and the study captured this, to skeptics' delight. The fact that a sizable percentage of AMS members disagree with mainstream climate science represented "the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist," according to Forbes blogger and Heartland Institute fellow James Taylor.

Yet a closer look at the studyconducted by researchers at George Mason University, Yale, and the AMS itselfshows that its main punch line is quite different. The research was chiefly focused on trying to understand why the meteorological community as a whole (the AMS includes climate scientists, academic meteorologists, forecast meteorologists, and general atmospheric scientists, among others) features such disparate views on global warming. And one of its principal findings is that AMS members who publish less peer-reviewed climate research, or less peer-reviewed research in general, are more likely to be climate skeptics.

Far from undermining the scientific consensus on climate change, then, the new study could be said to strengthen it, by defining who's a relevant expert in the first place. "You listen to the scientists who really know the field in question," says George Mason's Neil Stenhouse, a Ph.D. student and the study's lead author. "And previous studies show that if you ask the scientists who really know climate change, there is high consensus on human causation."

Similarly, after sorting AMS members by their climate expertise as well as their scientific publishing record, Stenhouse's study found that this seemed to have a big impact on their views about climate change. "93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming," noted the study's authors. By contrast, among "nonpublishing" climate scientists, only 65 percent believed that humans have contributed to global warming.

Something similar occurred with a different set of experts within AMS: meteorologists and atmospheric scientists. Those who published a lot on climate change, or a lot on other aspects of meteorological science, generally showed much higher conviction that humans are contributing to global warming (79 percent and 78 percent, respectively) than the "nonpublishing" experts (59 percent).

And there's more bad news for skeptics who want to cite this AMS survey to bolster their case. You see, the study also showed that conservative political ideology is a big factor behind the denial of climate science by some meteorologistsideology was a consistently bigger influence on meteorologists' views, in fact, than their level of scientific expertise. This finding of a major role for ideology, write the researchers, "goes against the idea of scientists' opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence."

The irony, then, is considerable. Even as climate skeptics cite the new AMS survey to claim there's no scientific consensus on climate change, the survey itself calls into question whether disagreement among meteorologists has much to do with purely scientific considerations in the first place.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*Unfortunately, in just the time between this report and the last iteration in 2007, climate change has grown 40 percent stronger thanks to ever increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.*

Wow, 40% stronger since 2007? LOL!

Holy measuring error Batman!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2014)

Love the fake "Deny" Standard.

That's another sure tell you're not dealing with real scientists


----------



## bedowin62 (Jun 17, 2014)

who is surprised the maniacally greedy Left wants to tax carbon; the building block of life on this planet?

there is simply NOTHING the Left wont do; or put you through to get their hands on other people's money; so they can change the world as their undeservedly smug brains see fit


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*The argument that we can't reduce our emissions because of something China and India are or may do is specious at best, and is a great example of poor leadership. *

Speaking of poor leadership, Obama wants to damage our economy in order to make a tiny reduction in US CO2 emissions.
A tiny, damaging reduction that will be overwhelmed by the increase in India's and China's CO2.
Would you recommend he reduce our GDP by 2%, 5% or more, for this pointless gesture?


----------



## bedowin62 (Jun 17, 2014)

idiot; the fact that China and India aren't subject to reduced carbon emissions means two things; it wont help the planet anyway to place costly restrictions on a few Western nations AND

 it will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs

so if you want to delude yourself that scenario is less "specious" than have at it. you cant fix stupid


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The actual scientists who study all of the different aspects of the climate and atmospheric physics are virtually unamamous in saying that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that the 43% increase that mankind has caused is heating the planet.
> ...



What a brilliant rebuttal.....NOT....

How did you get sooooo retarded, shitweasel? Did you get dropped on your head a lot when you were a baby?

The American Geophysical Union, a nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 62,000 members from 144 countries, issued a *position statement* on global warming in 2003, revised it in 2007, and revised and expanded it again in 2013. This statement affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

*Human activities are changing Earths climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."*​
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued a *position statement* in 2012 that concluded:

*There is unequivocal evidence that Earths lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.*​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Feel free to show me the science that proves "climate change has grown 40 percent stronger since 2007".

Thanks!


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








In terms of actual work, it is far more difficult to get a PhD in meteorology than in climatology.  Meteorology is a "hard" science while climatology is a "soft" science.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


The "consensus" hasn't been trumped, I chose an explanation that I thought you might be able to grasp. And 36% isn't a consensus in this universe.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes
> It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
> ...



LOLOLOL....good little denier cultist....parrot the lies...

Your article was written by a lawyer, James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlet. He is a famous liar.

Here is an analysis of his fraudulent article from the scientists who wrote the study that Taylor is deliberately misinterpreting.

*Taylor distorts poll of meteorologists on climate change to reach opposite conclusion of study authors*
Climate Science Watch
November 28, 2013
*Authors of a new study of meteorologists' views of global warming set the record straight when Forbes op-ed writer James Taylor, consistent with his long history of denial and obfuscation on climate change, selectively reports the results of a poll of members of the American Meteorological Society. Taylor claims the study shows weak support for the human contribution to global warming. In fact, as authors of the study point out below, the survey found that more than 90 percent of those respondents who are more engaged in research and publishing on climate science acknowledge the human contribution to warming.

Neil Stenhouse, et al., "Meteorologists views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members" (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, preliminary accepted version) (article Abstract)

Statement by Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Paul Croft, Keith Seitter, and Anthony Leiserowitz:

James Taylors interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change.  Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery. Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we cant stop them.  Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor.

In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming.  To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise  climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science  and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise.

We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years  rather than the warming in the past 150 years  more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring).  Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.*


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


I think you skipped a post.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "_These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change._" We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.
> 
> Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years  rather than the warming in the past 150 years  more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring).  Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.[/SIZE][/B]


Uh yeah, you don't like a potentially biased source so you use climatesciencewatch.org? 

It's full of shit and any grade schooler could blow holes in it. What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you? And they say if a question was asked differently then of course most of them would have answered in a way to support a consensus of man made warming. That sounds like science to you? You'll believe anything, no wonder you are so defensive.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you?



It sounds like something your point of view has never enjoyed and never will.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > What does "high levels of expert consensus" mean? That sounds like science to you?
> ...


I don't believe in any religions although they do enjoy high levels of expert consensus as well.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

No religion enjoys consensus support from scientists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> No religion enjoys consensus support from scientists.



Except AGW.

I mean 75/77 support it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

Tens of thousands support it.  Try to keep up. Just cause your fossil fuel funded sources don't tell you all the truth doesn't mean you can't go look for yourself.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Here's a little tip for you, Skippy:  The only person keeping you down is YOU.  It's not "the Man", it's not the GOP, it's not KKKorporations.  It's you, the choices you've made, and the opportunities you've squandered.  

Learn to take responsibility for yourself, accept the consequences of your actions, quit blaming others, and you can be a happy, productive member of society.

Or just keep whining like a little bitch on the internet because people won't give you free stuff the way you think you deserve.  

Your call.  But I expect you've already made your decision.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Chiefio reports that
> ...



Gosh, you're stupid.  Let's do a little math.  Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.

Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:  

17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11

We have a low data point of 0 and a high data point of 25, with an average of 18.8.  

Now let's do like climate "scientists" do and throw out the inconvenient data, choosing the warmest station to represent the entire area:  The average suddenly becomes 25.

All of a sudden, the average temperature became over 6 degrees warmer.   Note that the area itself didn't get any warmer -- but they sure do want you to think it did, don't they?

You're being lied to.  And you LIKE it.  Moron.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> We need to exterminate global warming deniers like we did back in Salem to the crazy witches.



Oh, bring it, you little bitch.  

Progressives are fucked in the head.  There can be no doubt.  Their only solution to dissent is bloodshed.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You'd die whimpering and starving in the cold and dark.  Guaranteed.  The people with the guns who have made preparations would survive.  You would not.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Hell, the models can't even predict PAST climate!


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Isn't that the goal of the green movement?  Have the few remaining humans living close to nature?  No artificial power sources?

You can live in a tent burning buffalo shit for heat if you want to.  But don't be surprised if I laugh at you when you tell me I have to do the same.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


$540 trillion: The global cost of climate change | Communities Digital News
In the heat of the 2013 elections, Australian Topher Field did a remarkable thing. He became the first person in the world to calculate the global cost of climate change.

Field uses universally accepted data sources. He assumes the IPCCs conclusions are all correct. He scales up Australias carbon tax solution to apply it to the whole planet. Australia models its carbon tax plan on the United Nations proposed solution.

Topher Field calls his analysis the 50 to 1 Project because he concludes in it that it costs 50 times more to prevent global warming than to adapt to its effects.

Field summarizes his findings in this highly entertaining, easy to understand and quite astounding 9-minute video:


Most astonishing is that *Fields calculations show that it would cost $540 trillion dollars to prevent a mere +0.17°C temperature rise by 2020.* That is a mind-boggling 80 percent of global GDP.

Field points out that, according the 2006 Stern report on climate change economics, a +3°C global temperature rise would cost 0 to 3 percent of GDP in climate damage.  Field assumes the Stern GDP mid-point increase, 1.5 percent, and concludes that it costs more than 50 times more to stop global warming than to adapt to it.​What's your share gonna be?  Or do you expect me to pay your share?



orogenicman said:


> The argument that we can't reduce our emissions because of something China and India are or may do is specious at best, and is a great example of poor leadership.  If Thomas Jefferson had opposed the revolutionary war because, well the King of Sweden never recommended it, where would we be today?


USA meets Kyoto protocol goal ? without ever embracing it | Watts Up With That?
New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.

In 2012, a surprising twist and without ever ratifying it, the United States became the first major industrialized nation in the world to meet the United Nations original Kyoto Protocol 2012 target for CO2 reductions.​I guess you can give Obama credit for that, since he fucked up the economy.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 17, 2014)

daveman said:


> Gosh, you're stupid.  Let's do a little math.  Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.



Thanks Dave. I was hoping you'd do exactly what you just did, which is display how your ignorance of the science makes you such easy pickings for the scammers.



> Here are numbers representing 16 different stations scattered across a wide area:
> 
> 17 19 22 2 9 18 6 4 1 21 5 3 14 8 7 25 15 16 13 23 20 12 10 0 11
> 
> ...



And thus Dave does his face plant into a cow patty. 

Dave, notice how when average temperatures are calculated, they don't use an absolute temperature? For example, they might say May 2014 is +0.33C. That's the temperature anomaly.

And why do they use temperature anomaly instead of absolute temperature? Precisely so they _don't_ get the situation you just described.

If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. And that's why the dropping out of those old stations had no effect on the temperature average. The anomaly average only changes if stations that were added or removed had a different trend. But since UHI is compensated for in the averages, the stations all trend together very closely.

Seriously, this is basic stuff. Since you didn't know it, it indicates you're not qualified to be sitting at the grownups' table. Back to the kiddie table with you, until you do more 'larnin.


----------



## daveman (Jun 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Gosh, you're stupid.  Let's do a little math.  Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.
> ...


Learning is precisely the LAST thing you want me to do.  No, you want me to join you in your immediate, unquestioning, and unthinking acceptance of your cult's dogma.  

Go peddle your bullshit elsewhere.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "_These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change._" We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.
> ...


They just report on the science. In this case they are publishing the response of the authors of the study that the denier stooge Taylor was fraudulently distorting. Of course you can't stand to have your deceitful misinformation and denier cult propaganda so completely debunked by the original authors of that study, so you're now trying to attack the website that exposed Taylor's lies. You are such a retarded troll!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 17, 2014)

I think Sealybobo might be trolling. Or he's 14 years old.

In any case, I suggest everyone ignore him.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2014)

12.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Gosh, you're stupid.  Let's do a little math.  Take off your shoes and count on your toes if you have to.
> ...



*If you use the anomaly, it doesn't matter if you drop out or add hotter or colder stations, as the average anomaly will be unaffected. *

If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?

Feel free to ask someone at the kiddie table if you need help.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> *who is surprised the maniacally greedy Left wants to tax carbon;* the building block of life on this planet?
> 
> there is simply NOTHING the Left wont do; or put you through to get their hands on other people's money; so they can change the world as their undeservedly smug brains see fit



Well, John McCain was for the carbon tax BEFORE he was against it.  Go figure.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A 20% reduction is more than a "tiny" reduction.  It could be more, but is, in fact, a reasonable amount considering all the opposition.  And it isn't like corporations in this country didn't know it was coming.  It isn't as if many of them aren't trying to find solutions.  China is well aware of their emissions, and has pledged to do something about them.  You didn't know this?  Huh.  Explain how increasing competition in the energy sector will result in a REDUCTION in our GDP?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> idiot; the fact that China and India aren't subject to reduced carbon emissions means two things; it wont help the planet anyway to place costly restrictions on a few Western nations AND
> 
> it will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs
> 
> so if you want to delude yourself that scenario is less "specious" than have at it. you cant fix stupid



Many of our heavy industries have already moved out of the country.  So if you don't mind, you could inform the rest of us what hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be lost that aren't already gone.  And we have already reduced our carbon signature by 17% over what it was in 2005.  China and India are, in fact, subject to reducing carbon emissions.  Their own people want it, as do many of their leaders.  China has already announced that they are beginning efforts to reduce emissions.  Will it be as much as we'd like to see and happen as fast as is needed?  We could ask that question of our own efforts.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Straw man argument.  So, erm, no it is not.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



HotWhopper: My advice to Topher Field - take the money and run!



> Topher Field managed to fleece tens of thousands of dollars out of gullible and hopeful science deniers. Now he seems to be making the mistake of trying to defend his dumb video and the lies it contains.
> 
> If he had any sense he'd take the money and run, not stick around to be shown up for so grossly misrepresenting climate science and climate economics.
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Actually, it appears that learning is something that you are incapable of doing.  I hate that for you.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*A 20% reduction is more than a "tiny" reduction.*

That magical reduction will leave world PPM at what level, compared to what level?

*China is well aware of their emissions, and has pledged to do something about them.  *

Oh, as long as they pledged to do something, I guess it's worth it to tank our economy then.

*Explain how increasing competition in the energy sector will result in a REDUCTION in our GDP?*

You'll have to explain how adding capacity that is more expensive and less reliable is increasing competition.

Oh, right, the government will force us to pay for this capacity and buy the unreliable, more expensive output. You don't understand how that hurts GDP?

If you need me to, I could try to explain some Econ 101 to you.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 18, 2014)

The Oracles will not cast their pearl before swine. Believe and receive and the truth shall set you free.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

The AGW cult has labeled CO2 as pollutant and thus shows that this based on a religious belief other than any real science.

Then again they want to spent 42 Trillion dollars to try and control the 1% that human contribute to this.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?



A fair question, and since the answer isn't obvious, I'll go deeper into it.

Imagine a two-station setup. There's a cool station that starts out at a baseline of 10.0C, averaged from many previous decades, and a warm station that has a baseline of 15.0C.

Say both stations start changing at around +0.02C per year. So, after ten years, the warm station would be at 15.2C, the cool station at 10.2C. Both would show a total anomaly of +0.2C. Average the anomalies together, and the average anomaly is also +0.2C.

Now, remove the cool station from the mix, and the average anomaly is _still_ +0.2C. Same if you remove the warm station. Because you're using anomalies, the baseline temp doesn't matter. Only the trend matters.

Now, if stations that had _trended_ cooler (or less warm) were removed, that would bias the results towards warm. But that didn't happen. The abandoned stations actually trended a bit warmer, so removing them actually introdued a small cooling bias. Not enough to be statistically significant, but enough to kill the conspiracy theory dead.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?
> ...


So they fudged some numbers to prove how accurate they are?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

The most advanced degree obtainable in Climatology is LSD. You have to take a lot of it for Climate "Science" to even being to make any sense


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> Tens of thousands support it.  Try to keep up. Just cause your fossil fuel funded sources don't tell you all the truth doesn't mean you can't go look for yourself.



Tens of thousands are supported by it.

There, fixed

Wait, you still think Earth based methane and hydrocarbons come from rotted dinosaurs?  You poor thing


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> The AGW cult has labeled CO2 as pollutant and thus shows that this based on a religious belief other than any real science.
> 
> Then again they want to spent 42 Trillion dollars to try and control the 1% that human contribute to this.



Suck on my tailpipe, you twerp.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 18, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> So they fudged some numbers to prove how accurate they are?



You're not actually that dumb. You think your cult will kick you out if you acknowledge how your cult's dumb conspiracy theory was debunked so easily. You're terrified of having to live without your cult telling you what to think, you don't want to get booted from your cult, so you're sucking up to your cult with some big lies.

And you'll lie again and again, at the drop of a hat, the instant you think it furthers your cult's agenda. Given your actions, everything you say now is assumed to be dishonest cult dogma, unless independent evidence indicates otherwise.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > So they fudged some numbers to prove how accurate they are?
> ...



" using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment"

From the header of the NASA Chart Mamooth posted supporting AGW


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

Bernie Madoff's accountant used "homogeneity adjustment"


----------



## mamooth (Jun 18, 2014)

Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.

As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.
> 
> As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.



So, what's your theory on the "record breaking" May homogeneity adjusted heat wave? and remember calling me a "Denier" is not a theory


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW cult has labeled CO2 as pollutant and thus shows that this based on a religious belief other than any real science.
> ...



More proof that the AGW cult is promoting a lie based on their religious beliefs and not based on any science.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.
> 
> As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.



I know let us study climate in a warming phase and create mass hysteria while we do it.

It is like all those extreme weather events that happen in cycles and blame them on the warming climate, even though existed long before the AGW religion.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Non-sequitur.  Atheists, such as myself, don't have any religious beliefs. But thanks for proving my point.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Mammy doesn't know; just mindlessly repeating the programming.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well, considering you want to cripple the economies of the entire Western world, and that will be the result, yes, you do.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Nice mindless cut and paste.  That guy's a real whiner, isn't he?

So, let's see some numbers.  What's it gonna cost to save the human race?


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Oh, I'm quite capable of learning.  I'd have to turn off that capability with brain trauma in order to "learn" AGW cult dogma.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Progressives' understanding of economics starts and ends at "Tax the rich!!"


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If the anomaly is the change from the average and you drop the colder stations, how does that not increase the anomaly?
> ...


Incorrect.  The abandoned stations were cooler, or showed no warming.

What the Russian papers say | What the Russian papers say | RIA Novosti
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.​
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/01/scientists-using-selective-temperature-data-skeptics-say/
In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station  at Eureka on Ellesmere Island  is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph DAleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.​
They're cherry-picking warmer stations.  This is undeniable.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Once again the AGW cult tries to prove that they are not religious or a cult by trying call themselves atheists..

Once again AGW is a religion not based on any real science so for anyone to promote AGW they must believe in the religious teachings.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.

Thus proving my point about the AGW cult.

Oh well another AGW cult member proven wrong with real science.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.
> 
> As the temperatures keep climbing, your cult's conspiracy theories will keep looking dumber and dumber. The longer you cling to them, the more painful it will be to finally drop them. The smarter rats will be leaving the ship before it sinks. You? You'll probably go down with it.



Except there has been no temperatures climbing.

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming - Forbes


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, you're sounding shrill and desperate now.
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....hilarious....another lawyer for the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry propaganda front group....who you trust more than the tens of thousands of actual climate scientists.....his article amounts to just more braindead denial of reality...

In the real world....

*Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows*
13 November 2013

*Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated*
13 June 2014 

*Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows*
10 December 2013

*Global warming continues with no slow down
*
March 27, 2013

*Global Warming Is Rapidly Accelerating*
12/31/2013 

*New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated*
25 March 2013 

*Global Warming is Accelerating, but it's Still Groundhog Day at the Daily Mail*
17 April 2013

*In Hot Water: Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms*
MARCH 25, 2013

*UN: GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING, AND WITH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES*
July 3, 2013

*Accelerated Warming Driving Arctic Into New Volatile State*
December 5th, 2012

*New Research Confirms Global Warming/Ocean Acidification Accelerating Faster Than Previously Thought*
MAR 27, 2013

*Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists*
ABC News Video

GLOBALLY.....

** Sixteen years ago 1998 became the hottest year on record by a considerable margin.

* Currently 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, in records going back to the 1800s. 

* 2013 was the fourth hottest year on record.

* The last decade was the hottest decade on record, as was the decade before that and the decade before that, in turn. 

* All of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. 

* The coldest years since 1998 are still hotter than all of the hottest years before 1998. 

* This last November 2013 was the hottest November on record globally.

* This last April 2014 was the hottest April on record globally.

* This last April was the 350th consecutive month with global average temperatures higher than the average temperature for that month, averaged over the entire twentieth century.

* The Arctic ice cap is still rapidly melting away.

* Large areas northern permafrost are still rapidly melting.

* Greenland and Antarctica are still losing ice mass at increasing rates.

* The large majority of mountain glaciers are still rapidly melting and disappearing.

* Sea levels are still rising at an accelerating rate.*

GLOBALLY....this is the actual temperature record.....





*Global temperature (annual values) in the data from NASA GISS (orange) and from Cowtan & Way (blue), i.e. HadCRUT4 with interpolated data gaps.
One can clearly see the extreme year 1998, which (thanks to the record-El Niño) stands out above the long-term trend like no other year. But even taking this outlier year as starting point, the linear trend 1998-2013 in all four data sets is positive. Also clearly visible is 2010 as the warmest year since records began, and the minima in the years 2008 and 2011/2012. But just like the peaks are getting higher, these minima are less and less deep.*
(source: *RealClimate*)


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?

How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?
> 
> How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?



Of course. The Heartland Institute is a propaganda outlet with close financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. They have very little scientific support.

The Guardian is a newspaper and their articles that I've cited have all been reporting on real peer reviewed science that was published in reputable international science journals, or they are quoting one of the leading climate scientists.

You only bring "_mockery and derision_" down on yourself with ignorant and clueless posts like this one. 

Examples...

*Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows*
13 November 2013
*A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.*

*Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated*
13 June 2014 
*Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy". "It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises. "Sea level is a very good integrator of different indicators of climate change," said Briggs.*

*Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
A new paper shows that global warming has continued over the past decade, and been manifested in different ways*
10 December 2013
*New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research [published in the American Geophysical Union's environmental science journal - 'Earth's Future'] investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades.*


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?
> 
> How is it you don't agree that all you deserve is mockery and derision?



Many members of the AGW cult are also far left Obama drones.

They deserved to be mocked for just being far left much less anything else.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?
> ...


The Guardian is the British National Enquirer.  Dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You complain about the Heartland Institute, then post links from the Guardian and DailyKOS?
> ...


Progressives' childish insistence their fantasies are real would be charming if they weren't fucking up the country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2014)

Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



More truth to defeat the AGW cult:







Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

daveman said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



LOL. Yes, yes, you "_dismiss_" all of the actual science and cling to your cultic myths...we know. In spite of your idiotic dismissal of the facts, The Guardian is actually one of the leading British newspapers with an online edition that is the third most widely read in the world and a combined print and online readership of nearly 9 million readers. The Guardian reports on real science that appears in prominent peer reviewed scientific journals.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The irony in those comments!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2



And here, poor addled Kosh shows how something as basic as an equilibrium system completely confuses him.

According to poor addled Kosh, if you make $103 a week and spend $100 a week, your bank account can't possibly increase by $3 a week, because it's only a 3% difference. That's literally how stupid his logic is.

In general, the deniers here are a cluster of low-watt bulbs. And not the efficient LED types. Flac and Ian have some smarts, but the others are all a few guppies shy of an aquarium.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2
> ...



More proof that the AGW cult follows faulty logic and wants you to believe that all CO2 is man made.

Amazing how faulty the AGW cult logic is.

They can not handle any real science and the true deniers are those that are against actual science, like the AGW cult members.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> More truth to defeat the AGW cult:


Actually, it's just more misinformation and lies from a confused denier cult dupe.

The CO2 emitted into the air from natural sources is balanced by the natural CO2 sinks that absorb CO2 from the air. The only new carbon being added to the atmosphere comes from the fossil fuels that have been buried for millions of years or from the melting permafrost. Mankind is currently adding 37 billion tons of CO2 to the air every year, and this has cumulatively increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43% (so far) over pre-industrial levels.

*Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere*
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
*Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important long-lived trace gas in Earth's atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere on a molar basis. Despite its relatively small overall concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth's surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect: CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode).[1]

Carbon dioxide is essential to life on Earth and is an integral part of the carbon cycle, a biogeochemical cycle in which carbon is exchanged between the Earth's oceans, soil, rocks and biosphere. Biologically, plants and other photoautotrophs extract carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide by the process of photosynthesis and use it as an energy source and for the construction of their body parts. 

The recent phenomenon of global warming has been attributed primarily to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 395 ppm as of 2013,[2] with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.[3] The daily average at Mauna Loa first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013.[4] It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[5][6] An estimated 3040% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[7][8] which contributes to ocean acidification. The present concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is the highest in the past 800,000 years[9] and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[10] 

Atmospheric carbon dioxide plays an integral role in the Earth's carbon cycle whereby carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by some natural processes and added back to the atmosphere by other natural processes. There are two broad carbon cycles on earth: the fast carbon cycle and the slow carbon cycle. The fast carbon cycle refers to movements of carbon between the environment and living things in the biosphere whereas the slow carbon cycle involves the movement of carbon between the atmosphere, oceans, soil, rocks and volcanism. Both carbon cycles are intrinsically interconnected and atmospheric gaseous carbon dioxide facilitates the carbon cycle.

Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, wildfires and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms. Man-made sources of carbon dioxide include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport, as well as some industrial processes such as cement making. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration. 

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[46] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[47] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[48] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some is directly removed from the atmosphere by land plants for photosynthesis and it is soluble in water forming carbonic acid. There is a large natural flux of CO2 into and out of the biosphere and oceans.[49] In the pre-industrial era these fluxes were largely in balance. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans.[50] The ratio of the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitted CO2 is known as the airborne fraction (Keeling et al., 1995); this varies for short-term averages and is typically about 45% over longer (5 year) periods. Estimated carbon in global terrestrial vegetation increased from approximately 740 billion tons in 1910 to 780 billion tons in 1990.[51]*


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

Kosh said:


> /www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/6-TempPrecedesCO2_
> 
> Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.



Wrong again, Koshitter. Scientists have found that increases in CO2 preceded and drove the temperature changes at the end of the last period of glaciation. BTW, your unsourced anonymous graph is a joke.

*Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature*
Jeremy D. Shakun,	 Peter U. Clark,	 Feng He,	 Shaun A. Marcott,	 Alan C. Mix,	 Zhengyu Liu,	 Bette Otto-Bliesner,	 Andreas Schmittner	 & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49&#8211;54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012

*Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > /www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/6-TempPrecedesCO2_
> ...



*Scientists have found that increases in CO2 preceded and drove the temperature changes at the end of the last period of glaciation.*

That's awful!!!

I blame the SUVs.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Only because you're kind of a anti-science retard who refuses to read what the scientists are saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



It sounds like CO2 increased without SUVs. 

Just awful!!

I'd like a mile thick chunk of ice in my back yard.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 18, 2014)

Let us drive the AGW cult crazy with this one:






Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has  cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the   United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with  solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 19, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > More truth to defeat the AGW cult:
> ...


Wikipedia? Seriously? Mankind's population has increased since the industrial age so just breathing with increase CO2s. What are the natural "sinks" since man evolved? Chapter and verse please.


----------



## Andylusion (Jun 19, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > More truth to defeat the AGW cult:
> ...



This is assumption, and an assumption we already have evidence against.

You claim that creation and absorbtion of CO2 was 'largely in balance', and yet we have ice core samples that prove conclusively, that CO2 levels had massive varation throughout Earth's history.   CO2 level have been lower, and higher historically, than they are today.

Further, it's natural that we would see averages over long time frames.  Meaning that it is entirely possible that CO2 levels changed rapidly over short time frames, that our data doesn't show.

So this claim that "CO2 is in balance, and only man made CO2 added" is just not a scientifically supportable claim.  At least not with anything given thus far in this thread, or that I have seen elsewhere.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.



And here, poor addled Kosh tells us that the present must behave exactly like the past, even humans have made conditions wildly different in the present.

For example, using the logic of poor addled Kosh, we would declare arson is impossible, because forest fires happened naturally in the past.

Kosh, all you're doing is running down a list of debunked denier talking points you got off of a blog. Yes, it is that obvious. Did you really think we haven't laughed at such nonsense a hundred times before? You're just not capable of anything beyond parroting.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Let us drive the AGW cult crazy with this one:



Why would it bother us that you're using distorted data? It only reflects badly on you.

Kosh, given that you've been reduced to parroting the nonsense of a single kook blog, you really should give them direct credit. Here, I'll help. This is the sole source Kosh relies on.

Global Warming Classroom


----------



## Andylusion (Jun 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.
> ...



Strawman.

We can prove conclusively that spreading gas on something, and igniting it, is due to the person doing those actions.

You can not prove that the specific emission of my Grand Marquis, is directly causing an increase in global temperatures.

Man made CO2 is a pathetically small fraction of global CO2 production.

Further, as has been discussed, CO2 levels have been lower and higher in the past.  Thus if man made CO2 was the cause of all global warming, then historical evidence presense a dilema.   If we were producing nearly as much CO2, then why didn't we have a multi-century heat wave?   If we did not, how did CO2 get so high?

There is no consistency to this argument.   Either way, it doesn't much up with the left-wing eco-religious dogma.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 19, 2014)

Androw said:


> We can prove conclusively that spreading gas on something, and igniting it, is due to the person doing those actions.



Just as we can prove conclusively how the current CO2 increase is due to humans. That makes my scenario exactly analogous to Kosh's, so pointing out the dumb logic of it also shoots down Kosh's absurd claims.



> You can not prove that the specific emission of my Grand Marquis, is directly causing an increase in global temperatures.



Goalpost shifting on your part. The issue was whether CO2 is following or leading now. You tried to change the subject.



> Man made CO2 is a pathetically small fraction of global CO2 production.



Failure on your part to understand how an equilibrium system works.



> Further, as has been discussed, CO2 levels have been lower and higher in the past.  Thus if man made CO2 was the cause of all global warming, then historical evidence presense a dilema.   If we were producing nearly as much CO2, then why didn't we have a multi-century heat wave?   If we did not, how did CO2 get so high?



Since nobody has ever claimed CO2 was the only climate driver historically, that's another logic failure on your part.



> There is no consistency to this argument. Either way, it doesn't much up with the left-wing eco-religious dogma.



And you end it with a political rant, revealing that for you, this is entirely about loyalty to your political cult. Of course, given how awful your arguments were, that was kind of obvious from the start.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 19, 2014)

Kosh said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



 I guess you thought you were posting to a conservative forum, where people just nod their heads and don't fact check.  Poor you.  Neither of those numbers are correct.  Try again.


----------



## daveman (Jun 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him



Progressives do have a tendency for mindless violence.


----------



## daveman (Jun 19, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works.  Agree with the cult, or don't get published.

Hell, you moron, they TOLD you they stack the deck in the Climategate emails.  But you're just the kind of mindless idiot they depend on.


----------



## daveman (Jun 19, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > /www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/6-TempPrecedesCO2_
> ...


80 proxy records?  _For the entire planet?_

You are unable to grasp how asinine that is.


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2014)

And how many proxy records have YOU got?

I would like to point out that there were multiple instances in which temperatures rose without increased CO2 to drive it.  There are other causes for increased temperatures.  However, as I and others have pointed out here on multiple occasions, in every instance studied, those rising temperatures increased CO2 in the atmosphere which then increased greenhouse warming which came to dominate the process.  There HAVE been instances in which CO2 levels shot up without apparent cause.  See the Permian-Triassic extinction event, when oceanic CO2 levels rose dramatically over a period of tens of thousands of years and made extinct over 96% of all marine species by ocean acidification.  BTW, the rate of ocean acidification TODAY is ten times as high as the rate that preceded the P-Tr extinction.

As I and others have ALSO pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that warming the planet releases CO2 into the atmosphere HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared.  They are TWO SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they're not linked.  As temperatures rise, from whatever cause, CO2 will increase, greenhouse warming will increase, and the warming will accelerate.

Claiming that the historical record is some sort of guarantee that human activity cannot alter the climate is the argument of a complete fool.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> As I and others have ALSO pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that warming the planet releases CO2 into the atmosphere HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared.  They are TWO SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.


Wrong. That's part of the greenhouse effect, although H2O plays a much larger role.


----------



## protectionist (Jun 20, 2014)

westwall said:


> There certainly is no empirical data for the above claims.



Plant trees.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2014)

daveman said:


> Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works.  Agree with the cult, or don't get published.



Since many deniers get published regularly, that's one of your more obvious lies.



> Hell, you moron, they TOLD you they stack the deck in the Climategate emails.



Bedwetting denier liars are a dime-a-dozen, Dave. Endless whining about the great socialist conspiracy is just boring. Got any new and more creative whines for us?

I'd ask you if it bothers you that the whole planet now considers you to be part of a liars' cult, but there's no need. As we can tell from your high-volume whining, it clearly does bother you a great deal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2014)

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 20, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Step 1.  Christians and Corporations need to stop denying man is contributing to GW.
Step 2.  Start the clean up


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



07/29/2010: EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 20, 2014)

daveman said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him
> ...



 Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the 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. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> ...



Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.

Then again anyone speaking out against AGW is usually ousted.

AGW is religion and not based on any real science. While they may and try and use science to justify their religion the is zero scientific proof that CO2 drives temperature.

A graph has already been posted which shows the human influence vs natural and we see that humans are only responsible for 3%.

So you want to throw 47 Trillion dollars at something that is only 3% of the problem?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> ...


show me the lab work Consensus Boy

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.



Kosh, just because you'd gladly lie, cheat, steal and commit fraud for a buck, don't assume any others share you moral failings. We are not like you. All those scientists you slur could double their salaries by switching sides and becoming a liar denier, but they don't. They willingly take a pay cut rather than lie, and that gives them credibility.

In contrast, your side does the opposite, taking big bucks for lying.



> Then again anyone speaking out against AGW is usually ousted.



Since denier scientists get published all the time, saying such a stupid thing makes you either delusional or dishonest.



> AGW is religion and not based on any real science.



Kosh, being you're not capable of anything except parroting your cult's websites, your hypocrisy here is especially funny. If we ever need a professional to instruct us in the art of partisan asslicking, you'll be the first one we call. But outside of your expertise in that field, you're of no use to anyone.


----------



## westwall (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> ...








Indeed they do.  Their very livelihoods and professional reputations are dependent on people believing the BS.  Nothing new.  Same unethical type of people trying to screw over the poor people yet again.

It cracks me up that you people scream at the tops of your lungs about the evil rich people and here you are breaking your backs and selling your souls to make them EVEN WEALTHIER!

What morons...


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2014)

What evidence do you actually have that all the world's climate scientists are lying?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> What evidence do you actually have that all the world's climate scientists are lying?



It's not all of them, so right there, you're lying.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> And how many proxy records have YOU got?
> 
> I would like to point out that there were multiple instances in which temperatures rose without increased CO2 to drive it.  There are other causes for increased temperatures.  However, as I and others have pointed out here on multiple occasions, in every instance studied, those rising temperatures increased CO2 in the atmosphere which then increased greenhouse warming which came to dominate the process.  There HAVE been instances in which CO2 levels shot up without apparent cause.  See the Permian-Triassic extinction event, when oceanic CO2 levels rose dramatically over a period of tens of thousands of years and made extinct over 96% of all marine species by ocean acidification.  BTW, the rate of ocean acidification TODAY is ten times as high as the rate that preceded the P-Tr extinction.
> 
> ...


Yeah.  Who here has made that argument?

Oh, yeah, nobody.  Strawman fail.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works.  Agree with the cult, or don't get published.
> ...


The whole planet?  Really?  You have an astronomically inflated view of your own importance, Skippy.  

Meanwhile, back in reality:
National Review Online | Print
Heres what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by peer review. When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann consensus, Jones demanded that the journal rid itself of this troublesome editor, and Mann advised that we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the consensus reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (one of the worlds foremost experts on climate change) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to get him ousted. When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow  even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up peer review as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: How To Forge A Consensus. Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: Thats peer review, climate-style.


The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the peer-reviewed consensus. And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line, and tree-ring.​
But it's not just scientists who are censored.  It's anyone deemed a dangerous denier:

https://www.credomobilize.com/effor...ish-climate-change-denial-conspiracy-theories
19 campaigns to get newspapers to stop printing letters from scary dangerous horrible deniers.  

The New Politics Of Climate Change: No Space For Deniers - Forbes
In a report published last week in London, Andrew Miller, the Labour Member of Parliament who chairs the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, urged the BBC and other media to stop giving  time and space  to climate change deniers, and to accompany any appearance of them with a health warning denouncing their views. What the deniers are peddling, Miller argues, is not science but politics, and the public should be informed that their views are rejected by 97% of scientists. Just where the figure of 97% came from Miller does not say; but he is adamant that all government ministers should acquaint themselves with the science of climate change, and be prepared to speak with one voice, accepting collective responsibility for the official opinion, which will be his opinion and the opinion of his committee.

The invocation of collective responsibility is revealing. For this implies that the orthodoxy Miller adheres to is, after all, not simply a matter of science, but a party line that must be supported for the sake of policy. If it is the science that concerns us, then dissenting voices must surely be part of the data, and not dismissed out of hand on the authority of the 97%. No doubt, at the time when Galileo stood before the Inquisition, 97% of scientists were prepared to assert that the sun goes round the earth. Luckily for Galileo, his humiliations were not crowned by an appearance on the BBC with a health warning strung round his neck.​
Then there's this fascist little prick -- sorry, it'd be easier to just call him a progressive, wouldn't it?  Same same -- College professor: ?Jail climate change deniers!? « Hot Air
As such, Torcello wants governments to make the funding of climate denial a crime.

The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the publics understanding of scientific consensus.​
Arrest Climate-Change Deniers
If you have all of this information at your command and that reform project still scares you, if you think it necessarily entails a sacrifice of your personal freedom that you cannot brook, fine. That's a debate we can have. But if you are actively trying to deny people the tools they need to inform themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to life and limb, you shouldn't be part of the debate. You should be punished for your self-serving malice.​
And now for the REAL lunatic psycho cultists:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
During todays hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to destroy the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

 It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."​
?Execute? Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ?At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? ? ?Shouldn?t we start punishing them now?? | Climate Depot
At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers
June 2, 2009, 9:42PM
What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who dont want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand its a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events  how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldnt we start punishing them now?​

AGW cultists are unhinged.  You should all seek professional help.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Ummm...Step 1 is actually "AGW Cultists need to use real science to make their case."


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402
> ...





As if that actually means something.  It's like asking the SS if Hitler was a bad guy.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Yes, that's what the acolytes say.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.
> ...


There is far more money on the pro-AGW side.

There was a claim made last year that skeptical organizations are funded to the tune of almost a billion dollars.  That, of course, was a lie, as shown in this article.  Pro-cultist groups raise over a billion and a half dollars a year:
Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lions share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.​
And that's not counting the money the government spends on AGW cult "science":

From 2011:  How Much Money Are US Taxpayers Wasting On ?Climate Change?? Try $10.6 Million A Day | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change  and thats just for this year!

Check the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 2011 budget request, and go tochapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation  they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Lets get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASAs total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I wont include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault  they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

Solar and wind power dont survive without this government funding.

Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?

Of course, theres more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDAs climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.​
"Follow the money!!" the cultists screech.

Except it always leads back to them.


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2014)

You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.

Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.


----------



## daveman (Jun 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.
> 
> Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.



Are you illiterate?

The NSF:  "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%."

"NASA wants $438 million to study climate change..."

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research..."

$1,725,000,000 that's going _directly_ to climate science.  

Can you find a credible total that's going to skeptical scientists?  Because I can't.  Show your work, please.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 21, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the 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. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."


In other words, they can't prove it. You don't need to rely on a consensus of opinion when you have facts at your disposal. At one time the consensus of scientific opinion was that we are living in a steady state universe. Big Bang proponents were deniers, until it too became the consensus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.
> ...



What a racket! All that money for "Research" and they never do any experiments!


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.
> ...


 [MENTION=48966]Crick[/MENTION]?  Didn't want you to miss this post.  You have homework.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2014)

daveman said:


> Are you illiterate?
> 
> The NSF:  "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.



Please tell us how, say, the $280 million spent to build and launch a satellite (the price tag for OCO-2) ends up in the pocket of a scientist.

You're literally declaring that the budget for weather satellites and various other weather gear is a socialist plot. Damn, you're stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you illiterate?
> ...



You're right, there is no money in those budgets for scientists. LOL!


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2014)

All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.

So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

daveman said:


> Pro-cultist groups raise over a billion and a half dollars a year:



Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.  "Pro-cultists groups".  Wow.  



daveman said:


> Five environment-specific groups [listed above] alone raised $1.6 BILLION



Okay.  First, calling these groups "pro-cultist", all by itself, throws you out in the tall grass with some serious whackos there Dave.  Second, you're not paying enough attention to what you, yourself are saying.  What does the word "raise" mean to you?  These groups subsist on DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC you twat.  Not research grants.  They aren't research organizations.  They do not conduct climate research.  They are environmental ADVOCACY groups.  I'm sure they do advocate for reduced GHG emissions, but among all their other causes, it certainly doesn't use up the $1.6 BILLION dollars that the AMERICAN PEOPLE gave them out of their own pockets to do what they've been doing for many years.  This, then, would be some of that money you listed that goes no where near any climate researchers.  It ought to also give you a better idea where you and yours stand in the regard of the general public in the great scheme of things.  The American public GAVE THESE GROUPS ONE BILLION, SIX-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of their OWN MONEY in A SINGLE YEAR.  And you call these very same groups "pro-cultist".  Yeah, you're mainstream Dave.



daveman said:


> When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion&#8217;s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.[/INDENT]



Not by anything you've put up here so far.  And if you want to even suggest that DONATIONS to environmental groups is equivalent to climate research, you'll need to pull out a mirror to see the liar in this debate.



daveman said:


> And that's not counting the money the government spends on AGW cult "science":



Ahhh... there's the rub.  As Cook et al found, the vast, vast majority of climate researchers accept AGW as valid.  Most research these days BEGINS with the assumption that it is valid.  So while there's a great deal of research being done to expland our knowledge of how the Earth's climate works - it being a very complex system, very little government money is being spent to convince the public that AGW is false and very few in government arguing that we need to know LESS about our climate or that we don't need to know ANYTHING AT ALL.  Which seems to be where you're headed.

We need to spend money on climate research.  And the results of the climate research done to date tells us that we need to spend money figuring out how bad it's going to get and how it's going to get bad.  We need to spend money  figuring out how to cut back on GHGs, how we might be able to directly reduce the GHGs we've already put into the air, how we might be able to counter their effects in general and in order to save and protect specific systems.

So, Dave, if you ask me, the thing we should be upset about is not that we're spending more money on climate change denial or more money on climate change research or remediation.  I think we should be upset that ANYONE is spending ANYTHING trying to convince the public of a dangerous falsehood in order to maintain their obscene income.  I think that ought to be a crime and they ought to go to jail for it.  The Heritage Institute isn't conducting science.  They're lying to the public on behalf of whoever pays them.  The GWPF isn't conducting science.  They're lying to the public on behalf of whoever pays them.  The American Enterprise Institute doesn't care about the environment - they care about American businesses.  Exxon/Mobil doesn't care about the environment - they care about Exxon/Mobil.   The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has no interest in sound science - they lobbied for the tobacco industry and now they lobby for the fossil fuel industry.

How is it you can sleep at night knowing that the core position you've taken here is that it's okay for people to lie to the public to get them to ignore a real threat they face in order for certain industries to continue to profit handsomely in the creation of that threat?  How?  Have you no shame?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.
> 
> So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.



*If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.*

Graft? How about just a paycheck for saying AGW is happening and the only fix is to spend trillions?


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

And you think a government employee - a PhD government employee, is going to get laid off must cause he doesn't come to the proper conclusions?  You need to do some reading on job security in civil service.  That man would have to murder someone, DURING WORKING HOURS, before anyone would broach the topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> And you think a government employee - a PhD government employee, is going to get laid off must cause he doesn't come to the proper conclusions?  You need to do some reading on job security in civil service.  That man would have to murder someone, DURING WORKING HOURS, before anyone would broach the topic.



Funding gets cut, someone has to go.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

Yes, that could happen.  That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept.  A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list.  Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former.  Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints.  Questioning those basics, however, IS likely to get your work rejected.  At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.

There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics.  And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much.  For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos.  Yet those status quos were NOT protected.  They all fell.  

Instead of thinking or worrying or pretending that denier viewpoints are being represssed by enemy powers, do some thinking and some worrying about what sort of a case you've actually got.  You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is a false signal from urban heat islands.  You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is due to increased solar irradiance.  And you've convinced no one inside or out of science of the existence of a grand conspiracy - at least who wasn't someone looking for conspiracies under every rock and bush.  Did you hear that a study found that people who believe the FBI assassinated JFK were several times more likely to believe that global warming was a conspiracy of climate scientists than people who did not?  Where do you stand on JFK, Todd?

So, what is your case?

Is warming taking place or is it not?

What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that?  Is it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says, yes, the world is getting warmer?

If it is, what is causing it?  What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that?  It it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation (ie, human activity) are the primary cause?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes, that could happen.  That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept.  A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list.  Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former.  Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints.  Questioning those basics, IS likely to get your work rejected.  At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.



*Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer,*

Except for the last 15 years or so.

Even with "adjusted" data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yes, that could happen.  That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept.  A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list.  Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former.  Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints.  Questioning those basics, however, IS likely to get your work rejected.  At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.
> 
> There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics.  And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much.  For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos.  Yet those status quos were NOT protected.  They all fell.
> 
> ...



*more likely to believe that global warming was a conspiracy of climate scientists*

Define conspiracy for me.

*Is warming taking place or is it not?*

We've been warming since the end of the LIA. 

What's a climactic optimum? Why do they call it that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2014)

*There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics. And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much. For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos. Yet those status quos were NOT protected. They all fell. *

Were any of those old theories pushed by a government looking for ever more control over our economy?


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Bump. And the crickets sing on and on and on...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2014)

Todd, I know your cult hands out brownie points to those who push the craziest conspiracy theories, but you need to understand how you look to those outside of your cult. If your goal is to gain status in your cult, your conspiracy tale method is the one to use. However, if your goal is to convince normal people, your method is counterproductive.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that could happen.  That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept.  A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list.  Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former.  Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints.  Questioning those basics, IS likely to get your work rejected.  At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.
> ...



I guess I wasn't clear.  The government DOES have a bias in that, like any research institution, it would like its scientists to get published.  Thus it DOES have a preference that its employees not challenge the accepted basics as it makes it much less likely their work has value and will be published.  Challenging the accepted basics either means you've made a momentous discovery or that you're an ignorant whack-job.  And I haven't seen any momentous discoveries from the deniers lately.  Or ever.


----------



## konradv (Jun 21, 2014)

westwall said:


> There certainly is no empirical data for the above claims.



What bullshit!!!

RealClimate: Data Sources


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you illiterate?
> ...


Not as stupid as a guy who argues against a point not even made in the post he quoted.

The NSF:  "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%."

Nothing in there about satellites, Slappy.  But way to knock down that strawman!  

Dumbass.


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.
> 
> So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.



Wait...so all that money you retards screech about Bush losing in Iraq -- wasn't lost?  It was tracked to the penny?  There are records of where it went?

I'll give you a moment to collect what few wits you have.  You obviously haven't given this any thought.  At all.


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Pro-cultist groups raise over a billion and a half dollars a year:
> ...


Public support is waning for your cult.  So, yes, I'm closer to the mainstream than you are.  


Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lions share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.[/INDENT]
> ...


So, you have no idea how much money skeptical scientists get.  I knew you'd fail.


Crick said:


> How is it you can sleep at night knowing that the core position you've taken here is that it's okay for people to lie to the public to get them to ignore a real threat they face in order for certain industries to continue to profit handsomely in the creation of that threat?  How?  Have you no shame?


I sleep fine.  And you're still screeching "Follow the money!!" when I've shown the cult gets far more than skeptical science?

You morons insist the only way to save the planet is to cripple our economies...without a single thought to the vast numbers of people who will be endangered by your shortsighted and dangerous policies.  

I know you sleep well at night advocating that.  Because you don't give a shit about people.  Progressives simply don't value human life.

This is undeniable.


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.
> 
> So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.



Oh, and speaking of graft...

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to  and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for  his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties  including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well  to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen nonetheless regularly refused to report this income.

Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee. This is despite NASA ordering him to return at least some of the money, with the rest apparently unnoticed by NASA. This raises troubling issues about Hansens, and NASAs, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefitting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not having ones public employment income supplemented. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for doing his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.

--

For example, consider these failures to report often elegant air and hotel/resort accommodations received on his SF278 as required by law (the amount of direct cash income received from the party providing him travel, as well, is in parentheses):

Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010

Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007

Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010

WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006

Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(business class, with wife), 2007

Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009

FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (business class), Bilbao, Spain, 2008

ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007

Progressive Forum ($10,000)(first class), to Houston, 2006

Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009

UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA

Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008

Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008

EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006

California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009

CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007

The following is an incomplete list of other travel apparently accepted to make paid speeches and/or receive cash awards but not reported on SF278 financial disclosures:

Boston, Washington, DC (twice); Columbus, OH; Omaha, NE; Wilmington, DE; Ithaca, NY (business class); Chapel Hill, NC; Deerfield, IL (Sierra Club No Coal campaign); Dartmouth, NH; Alberta, Canada (as consultant to a law firm helping run an anti-oil sands campaign), Stanford; Minneapolis; Missoula, MT

Other travel apparently accepted but not reported, to provide expert testimony including on cases involving federal policy:

California (Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep v. Witherspoon), Vermont (Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth etc v. Torti)

Failing to Report Gifts

World Wildlife Fund gave Hansen an engraved Montres Rolex watch, which typically run $8,000 and up (2006), but which was not reported by Hansen on his SF 278 under gifts, which must be reported if valued at more than $260.

Failure to Report Receipt of Free Legal Services

On his website Hansen said he began accepting free legal services in 2006. These are not reported on his financial disclosures, as they should be.

Also, NASAs document production shows him attesting to receiving more, separate free legal services in the form of an amicus brief drafted for he and a few others to intervene before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA. This was not reported on his SF278, as required.

These lapses on both Hansens part and NASA demand scrutiny to determine how laws designed to protect the taxpayer are, or are not, being respected.​
Hansen is dishonest.  Don't even bother trying to deny it.  You'd only look stupider.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

Good for him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Good for him.



He's the Bernie Madoff of Climate "Science"


----------



## daveman (Jun 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Good for him.


Yes, good for him for breaking Federal ethics laws.  

The ends always justify the means for progressives.  Laws broken, rights suppressed, innocents murdered.  It's all good in service of the agenda.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2014)

Innnocents murdered?  That would be your billet.  When people start dying of starvation and thirst  from climate changes that might have been ameliorated if not for you fossil fuel pawns holding us off - you can pull your grandkid up on your knee and say "I did that"!


Some ends justify some means. Jim Hansen hasn't done anything that  even a cranky, half-assed sort of a god wouldn't forgive him for.  I can't say the same for you.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 21, 2014)

Poor Dave. Ever deeper into the conspiracies he goes. They're all he has, all he'll ever have. And the world simply moves on without him, after a short stop to point and laugh.

It's probably for the best. You should do what you do best, and Dave is best at being a conspiracy parrot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Todd, I know your cult hands out brownie points to those who push the craziest conspiracy theories, but you need to understand how you look to those outside of your cult. If your goal is to gain status in your cult, your conspiracy tale method is the one to use. However, if your goal is to convince normal people, your method is counterproductive.



What's a climactic optimum? Why do they call it that?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2014)

The "natural cycles" argument you're trying to invoke is really dumb.

Denier "logic":
1. Natural cycles have caused warming in the past.
2. We are seeing warming now.
3. Therefore, the warming must be from a natural cycle.

Equivalent logic:
1. Species have gone extinct naturally in the past.
2. The dodo bird went extinct
3. Therefore, natural causes were responsible for the extinction of the dodo bird.

Really stupid logic, in both cases. Yet almost all deniers rely on that stupid logic, even after you point out how stupid it is. In general, deniers tend to stink at logic and common sense.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> *The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*
> 
> 6 August 2007
> 
> ...



Just show the supporting work for all of this and then this becomes useful.  without proof, it is all still the same old mumbo jumbo you can't backup!  Let's see the experiment that doubling CO2 causes a 3 degree C change in temperature.  you make the claim, back it up!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*
> ...



The links to the supporting work is embedded in the paper, the link to which was provided.  What?  You didn't open the link and check it out? 

 Instructions for opening web links:  

 1) You scroll to the link, and left click on it.  Enjoy already...


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The "natural cycles" argument you're trying to invoke is really dumb.
> 
> Denier "logic":
> 1. Natural cycles have caused warming in the past.
> ...








  The only problem you have is you can't refute it.  That's why you fight tooth and nail to prevent anything about cycles to be published.  Corrupt to the core describes you clowns.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2014)

The "natural" cycle now is trying to cool the earth, as has been happening since the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since it's currently warming, that would be one conclusively refutation of the weird claim that a natural cycle is currently driving climate.


----------



## westwall (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The "natural" cycle now is trying to cool the earth, as has been happening since the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since it's currently warming, that would be one conclusively refutation of the weird claim that a natural cycle is currently driving climate.










The trend has been towards warmer since the end of the Ice Age 14,000 years ago.  There have been periods in between that have been both warmer and cooler.....all following some sort of cycle.

Just like we are experiencing today.  The truth of the matter is since the 1930's the US has been in a cooling phase no matter how hard GISS try's to falsify the data to say otherwise.  Their problem is it is so obvious what they are doing that now, no one save useful idiots like you believes anything they say.


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The "natural cycles" argument you're trying to invoke is really dumb.
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Jun 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The "natural" cycle now is trying to cool the earth, as has been happening since the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since it's currently warming, that would be one conclusively refutation of the weird claim that a natural cycle is currently driving climate.
> ...


 
 What sort of cycle, where?

 It would be nice if you would present evidence for your claims instead of recycling right wing propaganda.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The "natural" cycle now is trying to cool the earth, as has been happening since the Holocene Climate Optimum. Since it's currently warming, that would be one conclusively refutation of the weird claim that a natural cycle is currently driving climate.



*The "natural" cycle now is trying to cool the earth*

I guess we should burn more coal, ice ages really suck.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 23, 2014)

The ice age is 50,000 years off. Your peculiar plan is like saying I should run my furnace full blast right now, because winter will eventually arrive in several months.


----------



## daveman (Jun 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Innnocents murdered?  That would be your billet.  When people start dying of starvation and thirst  from climate changes that might have been ameliorated if not for you fossil fuel pawns holding us off - you can pull your grandkid up on your knee and say "I did that"!


If you had the science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to pathetic fear-mongering.


Crick said:


> Some ends justify some means. Jim Hansen hasn't done anything that  even a cranky, half-assed sort of a god wouldn't forgive him for.  I can't say the same for you.


And now you claim to speak for God.

Are you ever going to do anything to merit the level of arrogance you display?  NOTE:  Being a mindless progressive is not an accomplishment.  It's a handicap.


----------



## daveman (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Poor Dave. Ever deeper into the conspiracies he goes. They're all he has, all he'll ever have. And the world simply moves on without him, after a short stop to point and laugh.
> 
> It's probably for the best. You should do what you do best, and Dave is best at being a conspiracy parrot.


...says the cultist.  

More projection on your part.  Seek help.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The ice age is 50,000 years off. Your peculiar plan is like saying I should run my furnace full blast right now, because winter will eventually arrive in several months.



Ice ages are much worse than Climatic Optimums.


----------



## Crick (Jun 24, 2014)

That doesn't mean a 5C temperature rise in the next century would be ice cream and cake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

If it's 8 degree warmer than it was 14,000 years ago, how the fuck is this a "Natural cooling cycle" Is the AGWCult really THAT FUCKING STUPID?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> That doesn't mean a 5C temperature rise in the next century would be ice cream and cake.



You never said what a Climatic Optimum is or why they called it that. 

I wonder why?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Well s0n I did look at all of the links, like I stated in my  orginal post the same old mumbo jumbo.  There is no experiment in any of the referenced links.  Feel free to point out the one I missed, but all I found when wasting my time was calculations, models and publications of forcing hypothesis'.  He claimed a 3 degree C change in temperature with a CO2 doubling.  I want the evidence that supports that statement.  I see you don't have that experiment either.  I'm not surprised.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't mean a 5C temperature rise in the next century would be ice cream and cake.
> ...



Because the question was just that stupid.  We know what the Holocene Optimum WAS.  What an "optimum" might BE in this context is unknown and unknowable.  If you think differently, please enlighten us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*We know what the Holocene Optimum WAS.*

Excellent! What was it? Why did they call it that?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2014)

Todd, if you don't know the answer, don't expect us to tell you. Do your own research. 

And after you do, then explain why you think your question isn't really really stupid. Because it is really stupid. Some say there's no such thing as a stupid question, but you're proving them wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Todd, if you don't know the answer, don't expect us to tell you. Do your own research.
> 
> And after you do, then explain why you think your question isn't really really stupid. Because it is really stupid. Some say there's no such thing as a stupid question, but you're proving them wrong.



Why don't you tell me why they call them climatic optimums?

What are you afraid of?


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2014)

I think we can guarantee that every native speaker of English here knows why they are called "optimums".  But this has as much real value as the claim that scientists were forced to go from "global warming" to "climate change" because of some unidentified failure of the evidence.

The lead post here presents an explanation of the evidence and the reasoning which supports AGW.  It involves no climate models.  It involves no esoteric, bleeding edge science.  It is clear, concise and rational.  If you can make a case against any of the six points made there, please do.  If you cannot, perhaps you ought to have the cajones to be able to admit it.  All of you.

ps: no one will EVER be afraid to deal with you on any scientific issue, Todd.  Ever.


----------



## Kosh (Jun 28, 2014)

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.






 Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> I think we can guarantee that every native speaker of English here knows why they are called "optimums".  But this has as much real value as the claim that scientists were forced to go from "global warming" to "climate change" because of some unidentified failure of the evidence.
> 
> The lead post here presents an explanation of the evidence and the reasoning which supports AGW.  It involves no climate models.  It involves no esoteric, bleeding edge science.  It is clear, concise and rational.  If you can make a case against any of the six points made there, please do.  If you cannot, perhaps you ought to have the cajones to be able to admit it.  All of you.
> 
> ps: no one will EVER be afraid to deal with you on any scientific issue, Todd.  Ever.



*I think we can guarantee that every native speaker of English here knows why they are called "optimums".*

Is it because warm weather is better than cold weather? 

*But this has as much real value as the claim that scientists were forced to go from "global warming" to "climate change" because of some unidentified failure of the evidence.*

Did they change it because their evidence for "global warming" was correct?


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I think we can guarantee that every native speaker of English here knows why they are called "optimums". But this has as much real value as the claim that scientists were forced to go from "global warming" to "climate change" because of some unidentified failure of the evidence.
> ...



Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.


----------



## protectionist (Jun 28, 2014)

Plant *MORE* trees.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.



Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...


   Might be. But it's not's likely to ever come close to the apocalyptic projections.



> Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
> Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
> Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?


 No empirical evidence for CURRENT effects. Projections based on sketchy and faulty simplistic guesses.. 



> Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?


Don't even HAVE MEASUREMENTS of the "grounding line". The "grounding line" is FINE on ON SHORE.. Not likely to be simply warming of a fractional degree.. 




> Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"


SURE -- it is kiddo !!! 



> Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?


 Likely more a lazy way to explain unrelated phenomena and get paid for it. Show me ONE biological cycle disrupted by a 0.5degC change in AVERAGE temp over 80 yrs.



> The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.



You are so careless in your assertions -- you shouldn't even be discussing scientific topics.. 
*Judith Curry *  -- you  lose moron...


----------



## Kosh (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



Look AGW laced questions not based on real science.

Just goes to show that this is a loyal AGW cult member that relies on religious scripture than actual real science.

Then again how can you take one serious when they believe in Hockey Sticks:






In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a  Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



In your MIND -- all those things are Global Warming. They include observations that have THOUSANDS of alternate explanations. But are convieniently lumped into the pot of gold that is "global Warming" research.. 

The biggest defeat in recent history for your claims that to see "global warming" you only need to read the weather news came at a July 13 2013 Senate hearing that the Dems expected to be a celebration of all things Global Warming.  They coughed up hairballs when asked to defend the statements about recent weather events being CAUSED by GW. And *the THEME
was that there was TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON GLOBAL warming measurements and that Climate Change is a REGIONAL EFFECT.. So there is your reason for changing the name.. * Easier to find terrifying examples. Less need to tie them to a GLOBAL theory of any kind.. 

You can't show extreme weather events in the news to be GLOBAL or even due to the WARMING --- So the focus is now on CLIMATE CHANGE, which can be regional and does not HAVE to be traced back to the tenets of Global Warming theory.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
> Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
> Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
> Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> In your MIND -- all those things are Global Warming. They include observations that have THOUSANDS of alternate explanations. But are convieniently lumped into the pot of gold that is "global Warming" research..



First, don't waste everyone's time here trying guess what is in my mind.
Second, I provided that list in response to the tired "global warming -> climate change" comment made by those too ignorant to know better.  It is simply a small collection of other, secondary AGW effects, the inclusion of which might suggest to someone discussing the topic that they use a more inclusive term.  They are NOT part of my definition of AGW.  I have given you my definition on more than one occasion and I stand by my prior statements.  I have also suggested a number of ways you ought to be able to falsify it, particularly if any of the many claims you and yours have made were actually true.



flacaltenn said:


> The biggest defeat in recent history for your claims that to see "global warming" you only need to read the weather news



I have never made any such claim and I would not do so.  Save it for your straw man.



flacaltenn said:


> came at a July 13 2013 Senate hearing that the Dems expected to be a celebration of all things Global Warming.  They coughed up hairballs when asked to defend the statements about recent weather events being CAUSED by GW.



When have I EVER given the impression that I thought the US House or Senate were good sources for accurate science information?  If you'd wanted an explanation as to how global warming could have produced the cold weather extremes experienced in the US midwest and northeast, you could have asked me.  I explained it here several times:  Rossby waves caused by a reduced temperature differential between the equator and the poles - remember?  Going to some denier blog's description of a congressional dog-and-pony show, however, was just plain stupid.



flacaltenn said:


> And the THEMEwas that there was TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON GLOBAL warming measurements and that Climate Change is a REGIONAL EFFECT.



I'm sorry, but I remember no such thing.  I would have paid very little attention to anything going on in Congress in this regard, but I should think it would have been mentioned here and I recall no such thing coming up.  Are you sure you're not just making this stuff up?



flacaltenn said:


> So there is your reason for changing the name.. Easier to find terrifying examples. Less need to tie them to a GLOBAL theory of any kind..



Are you suggesting that the term "climate change" replaced "global warming" on 13 July 2013?  You realize how simple that is to prove wrong?  Please stop wasting our time.  Remember Thumper's Mom: "If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all".  



flacaltenn said:


> You can't show extreme weather events in the news to be GLOBAL or even due to the WARMING --- So the focus is now on CLIMATE CHANGE, which can be regional and does not HAVE to be traced back to the tenets of Global Warming theory.



You look foolish trying to set artificial constraints on me.  Do you actually think any region of the Earth is permanently immune to extreme weather events or that it is necessary that the entire planet suffer such events simultaneously before we can say they are happening?  We've had Katrina, Sandy, midwest flooding, western droughts and the Polar Vortex.  The Philippines had Typhoon Haiyan while the Pacific as a whole suffered 13 typhoons, five of them classified as "super".  The Rossby Waves that put the northern US in the deep freeze all winter left other portions of the northern hemisphere in unseasonably warm weather.

I will have no trouble finding extreme weather events world wide - and it will only get easier to do so as global temperatures rise.  BTW, unless its the actual topic of conversation as it is here, I almost never, ever use the term "climate change".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



Is cherry picking events and altering data at odds with the theory "Global Warming"

Is pointing at stories on the Weather Channel and Shrieking "Global Warming!!!!", global warming?

BTW. It's not called "Global Warming" any longer, it's "Climate Disruption"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



And yet, we are still waiting for any lab experiment that shows how CO2 does ANY, much less ALL of the above


----------



## jc456 (Jun 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



what is your definition of global warming?


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Scientific chicanery is when someone avoids the lab like the were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a field of garlic


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



AGW is religion based on belief not based in science, it is a cult based on the color green and now powered by the far left around the world and their political allies.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Answer one question: did you complete your first year of basic Earth science before they failed you or did they toss you mid-term?  I know you've got some idea brewing. Why don't you just spit it out before you embarrass yourself any further trying to be clever.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So in other words you can not answer the question.

Go figure that from the loyal AGW religious followers.

Where is that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO@ drives climate which the entire basis of your religion?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



yep, I did have an alternative motive, but you can't even answer that question honestly.  It is a fairly simple question I thought.  See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun.  You obviously can't.  See, I believe that CO2 holds the heat it receives for awhile and then begins to cool, that's why it gets colder at night when the sun goes down, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases started to release there energy.  Now, I can't see how it can make it hotter than the sun.  And you again obviously can't answer that. Although, it is your claim.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun.



That's meaningless jabber on your part.

But for our amusement, do go on. Please tell us exactly how hot the heat from the sun is.



> Now, I can't see how it can make it hotter than the sun.



So apparently, you do see how CO2 makes the planet as hot as the sun, just not hotter. Can you explain why we haven't all been vaporized?


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun.
> ...



wow, your a real hack, huh mamooth?

You really had to cut up such a short post so you could cherry pick and flame someone, wow.

Mamoot, you don't know shit about anything. 

How about a link to a link to a link that links to a press release. You are good at those mamoot


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.
> ...



The West Antarctic, is that where the Scientist got stuck in the ICE thinking there was no ICE there?

Seriously, the Scientists state the ICE is gone, believe the ICE is gone, they go to investigate and they get stuck in the ICE. 

Now that is a fact, evidence of what, that these Scientists know zero outside a computer model.

I bet the Scientist used their own computer models to predict the weather on their Antartic trip.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues?  REALLY?  Don't be stupid.  The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it.  NOTHING.  That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions.  You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues?  REALLY?  Don't be stupid.  The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it.  NOTHING.  That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions.  You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.


You can throw yourself into one of the underwater volcanoes


----------



## Andylusion (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues?  REALLY?  Don't be stupid.  The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it.  NOTHING.  That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions.  You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.



Yes yes, of course.

If there is nothing we can do to stop it, why don't you find something more productive to do with your time?

Whether or not the ice will be floating, unlike you, I don't pretend I know everything.

But given how all the models used thus far, have been consistently wrong, your credibility is questionable... read 'non-existent'.

However, honestly as one poster to chicken little... if you really believe the sky is falling and there is nothing anyone can do about it.......

Why don't you.... I don't know... find something useful to do with your life?  Maybe help out a charity?  Spend more time with your wife?   Or your kids?   Or help fix something in society?  Like a help out at a hospital?   Go plant some trees at a park? 

Or lets hit closer to home.   Out of all the threads I talk about, and discuss with others, I choose ones I think can be changed, or helped.

If I thought we're all doomed, and there is nothing we can do about X, I wouldn't be on thread X.   Why scream and yell for no reason, and you just said there's no reason?

Leftists are nutz.  Nothing they do ever makes sense.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 2, 2014)

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.
> 
> What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.
> 
> In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.



But they can't afford to conduct even one experiment that shows weather or not a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.
> 
> What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.
> 
> In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.



So what? Without evidence that shows that CO2 drives temperature, that you can't, who flippin cares how much CO2 is in the atmopshere.


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.
> 
> What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.
> 
> In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.



Nice rant, too bad you do not have the intelligence to make sense of what you learned. Maybe you could link to a press release and pass that off as your superior intellect.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 2, 2014)

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.



Since the message is out there that there is no proof, what bitterness there is will only be from your side since you can't provide it!  Speak of bitter,  the lack of that experiment proves our point. listen and you'll hear the pac man music.  BTW, you make me laugh!


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Do you have a relevant question you care to ask?


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.








  Models aren't "data" idiot.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.
> 
> What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.
> 
> In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.



More proof that the AGW religion is all about money!

Still will not prove that CO2 drives climate.

If we had spent those trillions on what does drive climate we would be better for it now.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

westwall said:


> Models aren't "data" idiot.



They aren't?  Are you SURE about that?  Really SURE?  Think real hard.  Try it one more time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Models aren't "data" idiot.
> ...











One is a Model, the other is Data

See the difference


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2014)

DATA
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
( used with a singular verb ) a body of facts; information: Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

DATUM
1.
a single piece of information, as a fact, statistic, or code; an item of data.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
any fact assumed to be a matter of direct observation.
b.
any proposition assumed or given, from which conclusions may be drawn.
3.
Also called sense datum. Epistemology. the object of knowledge as presented to the mind. Compare ideatum.
4.
Surveying, Civil Engineering . any level surface, line, or point used as a reference in measuring elevations.
5.
Surveying . a basis for horizontal control surveys, consisting of the longitude and latitude of a certain point, the azimuth of a certain line from this point, and two constants used in defining the terrestrial spheroid.

DATA
1.	a series of observations, measurements, or facts; information
2.	computing  Also called: information  the information operated on by a computer program

DATUM
1.	a single piece of information; fact
2.	See also sense datum a proposition taken for granted, often in order to construct some theoretical framework upon it; a given

COMPUTER DICTIONARY

data definition
data, data processing, jargon 
 /day't*/ (Or "raw data") Numbers, characters, images, or other method of recording, in a form which can be assessed by a human or (especially) input into a computer, stored and processed there, or transmitted on some digital channel. Computers nearly always represent data in binary. 
Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information. 
For example, the binary data 01110101 might represent the integer 117 or the ASCII lower case U character or the blue component of a pixel in some video. Which of these it represents is determined by the way it is processed (added, printed, displayed, etc.). Even these numbers, characters or pixels however are still not really information until their context is known, e.g. my bank balance is £117, there are two Us in "vacuum", you have blue eyes. 

Climate models perform start out with measured climate parameters and process them using known physical laws, physical processes and climatological functions.  They are often regularly updated with more direct measurements and observations as their runs progress. If you think they are not data, you will be wanting to throw out most of human science as it also was determined by physics-based calculations performed on measurements.


----------



## elektra (Jul 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.



yes, your continued use of second hand links to press releases is such compelling data it led us to bitterness.

Do you deny, mamoot, that you use nothing but press releases? 

Don't bother to quote or respond, I am just here to show how all you got is the denigration of those who will not accept a press release as a fact. 

How about a nice link to another press release, you are really good at that.


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Models aren't "data" idiot.
> ...








No....I'm not "sure" about that.  I'm *POSITIVE!*  The fact that you're not only demonstrates the poor understanding of science and the scientific method that you all suffer from.


----------



## Crick (Jul 3, 2014)

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value.  Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data.  They are not fantasies.  They are not fabrications.  If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models.  Like yours.  JUST like yours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.
> 
> Data is any information that anyone finds of value.  Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.
> 
> Climate model outputs are processed real world data.  They are not fantasies.  They are not fabrications.  If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models.  Like yours.  JUST like yours.


So I can use the same data to show a correlation between Progressive leadership and AGW

Our warmest years were when we had our most Progressive presidents. Hence Progressives cause AGW

Can I get an Amen (consensus)


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.
> ...



Amen!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed the above and fit it 100% Accurate

We have Consensus!

The Science is Settled!

Progressives cause Global Climate Warming Disruption


----------



## elektra (Jul 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.
> 
> Data is any information that anyone finds of value.  Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.
> 
> Climate model outputs are processed real world data.  They are not fantasies.  They are not fabrications.  If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models.  Like yours.  JUST like yours.



Climate model outputs are processed real world data, yep, that is true.

The Real World Data states that there is no AGW, but once its processed it becomes a nice piece of Activists propaganda the fools use to scream, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

Where the fuck do you get the idea that the real world data says there's no AGW?

Here's some real world data that says you need to think again (or perhaps for the first time):


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Where the fuck do you get the idea that the real world data says there's no AGW?
> 
> Here's some real world data that says you need to think again (or perhaps for the first time):



You let off the chart of the Deep Pacific Ocean Warming


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You let off the chart of the Deep Pacific Ocean Warming



That would be the "the ocean ate my global warming" chart?


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

Like this one from NOAA/NCDC?






How is it you can look at these data and the numerous other datasets displaying the ocean's 10x10e22 joules added heat (btw, that's 1.136 BILLION times the energy of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) just since 2000 and claim "no warming in the last 17 years?"  Doesn't it ever bother you to be that dishonest?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Like this one from NOAA/NCDC?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...and that's how atmospheric CO2 turned the ocean to warm gastric juice. And they lived carbon free and happily ever after

So, 120PPM of CO2, warmed the planet 2-8 degrees, turned the oceans acidic and warmed them in the process.

Uh huh.

Sure, it did.  Sure


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Chart demonstrating the process by which atmospheric CO2 warmed the Deep Pacific Ocean


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Like this one from NOAA/NCDC?
> ...



Don't be such a fucking idiot Frank.  If you think it didn't, SHOW US THE GODDAMNED DATA THAT *SAYS* IT DIDN'T.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Prove there's no Bigfoot!

Bigfoot Denier!!


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

No, Frank.  Show us ocean heat content data that does NOT display a 10x10e22 joules of heating since 2000.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



That chart doesn't say that it did...that chart shows 0 to 700m which is not the deep ocean...and considering the amount of data tampering going on in government climate science what makes you think that chart is accurate?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, Frank.  Show us ocean heat content data that does NOT display a 10x10e22 joules of heating since 2000.



Pointing at things and Shrieking "MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!" is not science, Dear


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

And you might try to get a better handle on that whole "prove a negative" issue.  That's about the sixth time in the last week that idea's been badly abused.


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Three different studies have found the same ocean heating.  And since the dependent variable is heat content and not temperature, the fact that the full ocean depth isn't included indicates this is very likely an understatement of actual ocean heating, Mr Science-Whiz.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

A friend of mine swears she saw BigFoot in rural Washington State in 1974.

I want you BigFoot DENIERS!!! to prove she was wrong


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> And you might try to get a better handle on that whole "prove a negative" issue.  That's about the sixth time in the last week that idea's been badly abused.



Yet, you keep using it? I guess when the lab is so vicious and sadistic to your "theory" what else can you do?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Coughing......bull....shit


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> And you might try to get a better handle on that whole "prove a negative" issue.  That's about the sixth time in the last week that idea's been badly abused.



Umpteenth, umpteenth time prove CO2 drives climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*And since the dependent variable is heat content and not temperature*

How do you measure heat content without measuring temperature?


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You missed the point.  Given the data shows heat content, the addition of the rest of the ocean depth would, if anything, ADD to the measured parameter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



How did they determine the increase in heat content?


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2014)

The usual way.

Tell me Todd, have you seen some data that shows the ocean below 700 meters to be cooling?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> The usual way.
> 
> Tell me Todd, have you seen some data that shows the ocean below 700 meters to be cooling?



*The usual way.*

Which is?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How did they determine the increase in heat content?



By measuring the temperature. How did you think they'd do it?

The Argo floats can adjust their depth, and regularly take dives down to 2000m. They measure temperatures at a range of depths, bob back up to the surface, and transmit results.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How did they determine the increase in heat content?
> ...



I asked Crick, how do you measure heat content without measuring temperature?

He said I missed the point.

So great, they measure temperature.

How much increase in temperature gives the result that was supposedly added to heat content?


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2014)

Increasure?

English is hard, harder if your Todd.

Now show us some data that says ocean temperatures or ocean heat content have not risen significantly since 2000.  Failing that (and you will fail that) you fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> Increasure?
> 
> English is hard, harder if your Todd.
> 
> Now show us some data that says ocean temperatures or ocean heat content have not risen significantly since 2000.  Failing that (and you will fail that) you fail.



Your?

English is hard, harder if you're Crick.


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2014)

Bravo!


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



In his defense, SSDD is a denier hive-mind drone.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2014)

So we're still waiting for the evidence that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.  

enter the theme for Jeopardy!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2014)

July 7, 2014

Number of Lab Experiments demonstrating how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers ocean pH is still zero.

Nevertheless, unthinking, unquestioning AGWCultists rave about "Consensus"


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

The number of blatant, willful liars grows with each denier post.

Let's talk about gas absorption spectrums.  Do either of you two understand what those squiggly lines represent?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> The number of blatant, willful liars grows with each denier post.
> 
> Let's talk about gas absorption spectrums.  Do either of you two understand what those squiggly lines represent?



You know that chart has nothing about temperature increase or decrease in pH, right?

I know you're quite insane, but surely you see that your chart does not answer the question about CO2 impact on temperature or pH. Right?


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

No.  What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level.  Or lower.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE  -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> No.  What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level.  Or lower.



You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1.  More data is better.  You don't purposefully eliminate data.

2.  You don't alter the data to fit the model.  You alter the model to fit the data.

3.  If your models can't predict what's happened in the past, your models suck.

4.  Replication.  If other scientists can't reproduce your work and arrive at the same conclusions, your work is wrong.

5.  Openness:  You record and share everything.  You don't keep anything hidden.  

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.


Thanks for confirming:  If you want to know how a progressive feels, see what he accuses conservatives of.


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Models aren't "data" idiot.
> ...



They really aren't.

Data are what you plug into a model.  In the case of AGW "science", you have to cherry-pick the data to support the predetermined conclusion you wrote the model to spit out.


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.
> 
> Data is any information that anyone finds of value.  Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.
> 
> Climate model outputs are processed real world data.  They are not fantasies.  They are not fabrications.  If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models.  Like yours.  JUST like yours.


Model OUTPUTS are data.  The models themselves are not.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The fact that he claims to be an engineer and actually expects that people will believe him leaves me rolling on the floor in paroxysms of laughter sometimes.  The first indication that warmers are not science based is the general consensus among them that models are data.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.
> ...



In the case of GCM's, the output is shitty data as it bears no resemblance to reality.


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE  -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!



The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me.  And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing.  There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE  -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!
> ...









Look at this Chart and tell me what is says about CO2, you Whack Cult Guy


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No.  What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level.  Or lower.
> ...



Wrong.  More _good_ data is better.  Adding bad data is, well, bad.  And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.



daveman said:


> 2.  You don't alter the data to fit the model.  You alter the model to fit the data.



The model is supposed to mimic reality.  If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.



daveman said:


> 3.  If your models can't predict what's happened in the past, your models suck.



Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you.  What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you.  I don't believe them.



daveman said:


> 4.  Replication.  If other scientists can't reproduce your work and arrive at the same conclusions, your work is wrong.



Sure.  I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication.  That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise.  Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated?  Do you?  Cause I'd like to see them.



daveman said:


> 5.  Openness:  You record and share everything.  You don't keep anything hidden.



Sure.  When you can.  The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership.  I know you think that's all a big lie.  Well, that's your problem then.  A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions.  Prejudice they call it sometimes.



daveman said:


> AGW "science" violates all of these principles.



No, it does not.  And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Lies. All lies.  Everything you believe is a lie.

It's been proven over and over and over again.  Yet you still bitterly cling to the lies.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's only because you're stupid and gullible.


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And this is just one more example that you don't seem to be able to get ANYTHING right.  I've never seen such consistency.  Honestly.  Never.

We can add to his impressively long list of things gotten completely wrong, his belief that I should care what he thinks of me for so much as one single, solitary SECOND.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2014)

daveman said:


> Lies. All lies.  Everything you believe is a lie.



Dave, that type of behavior is the biggest reason why most the world considers you to be a screaming lunatic.

For your sake, I hope the emotional satisfaction that your cult membership brings you is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Dave, I only tell you this because I care about your well being.  All that gunslinger crap... it makes you look like a ten year old.  Really.  Show it to someone who doesn't know its you and ask them.  Really.  Maybe a ten year old with self-esteem problems.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You think they'll ever come back with a temperature increase?
Or will they continue to ignore the question?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE  -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!
> ...



*The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me.*

Me too!

*And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. *

Okay. So how much temperature increase was needed to increase the heat content so much?


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

mamooth said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Lies. All lies.  Everything you believe is a lie.
> ...


And that illustrates exactly how insane you are:

_You believe you speak for the whole world._


----------



## daveman (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And the REALLY funny part is, you think I'll change my behavior because you don't like it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE  -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!
> ...



Just when I thought the drama was unbearable -- Crick raises the stakes. How is that atom bomb counter on every page of the skeptyscience site doing BTW ???   You know the Nat Endow Arts fund is only about $0.60 per person in the USA per year -- but THAT is an amazing load of change too.. 

I'm scared.. Somebody hold me... .


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 8, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No doubt, you told your mother the same thing.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me.  And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing.  There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.



It would since you people thrive on alarmist rhetoric.  4 Hiroshima bombs every second spread across the surface of the earth amounts to almost as much energy per square meter as a 60 watt refrigerator light bulb.  You people lie, you distort, you fabricate, you wave your hands hysterically, and did I say that you lie...well that one bears saying again.  You lie about yourself, you lie about what you do, and you lie about climate change.

Tell us how dramatic the light from a 60 watt refrigerator bulb really is to you.

Take a look at this graph:  See the text off the coast of Australia?  Surface imbalance of .06 watts per square meter plus or minus 17 watts per square meter.  So the energy from a 60 watt refrigerator light is dramatic to you?  How dramatic is that figure when it is stated with an uncertainty of plus or minus 113 Hiroshima bombs.







I think the fact that you are a liar and an alarmist can't be stated often enough.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2014)

daveman said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



They all do, it is their religion.  They believe deep, deep in their hearts they are purely better because they think they speak for the whole world.  It's a hoot dude!!!! They've simply supplied zero data that validates any of their whole world religion.  It's folks like us that must maintain the objective of questioning to the void!!!!! never let them have that moment where they say a lie and no one responds.  It must be answered every time. Thanks!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me.  And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing.  There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.
> ...



Sounds like a fixation to me.  BTW, you erred by a factor of ten.  The diagram says 0.6, not 0.06.  You failed to refute or even cast doubt on anything I said.  So where is the lie that would make me a liar?  At least when I call you an incomparable idiot WRT science, I have made a reasonable case for it.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2014)

If you examine Flac's kook claims, his math is hilariously wrong. Like it always is. At least he's consistent in his total incompetence.

A Hiroshima bomb is 63 terajoules, 6.3 E13 joules

4 Hiroshima bombs/sec is 2.5 E14 watts 

The surface area of the earth is about 500 million km^2, 5 E14 m^2

2.5 E14 watts/ 5 E14 m^2 = 0.5 watts/m^2

Flac said 60 watts/m^2. So, flac was only off by a factor of 100 or so. That's actually better than is usual for his claims.

Flac, this should be where you apologize for screaming others were wrong, when it was you who was the raging dumbass.


----------



## daveman (Jul 8, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!

-- Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan, _The 13th Warrior_


----------



## daveman (Jul 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> If you examine Flac's kook claims, his math is hilariously wrong. Like it always is. At least he's consistent in his total incompetence.
> 
> A Hiroshima bomb is 63 terajoules, 6.3 E13 joules
> 
> ...


So, half a watt per square meter.

And the cult says this amount of energy is going to kill us all?

Absolutely ludicrous.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It is .6...and your idiocy continues...and the uncertainty is plus or minus 17 which makes all of your claims absurd.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2014)

Still waiting for you to identify my lies and an explanation of how you believe radiative heat transfer takes place.  I'm also curious where Curry got these uncertainty values.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2014)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I guess I was wrong.  You're nothing like a grown up.  Nothing at all.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2014)

daveman said:


> My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!
> 
> -- Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan, _The 13th Warrior_



I guess I was wrong.  You're nothing like a grown up.  Nothing at all.

You realize (one hopes) that the quotations you give here, with the implication that they have some merit and some significance, are all quotations of fictional characters?  They are made up.  They don't exist.  These lines are the work of authors of fiction; and not very good fiction either.  Your quotation above should go to John McTiernan and your usual sig is, of course, the work of Steven King.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!
> ...



Just like your proof of 120PPM of CO2 driving temperatures!!! Welcome to our world.

You ain't got any, you ain't got any, doesn't it bother you you ain't got any?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for you to identify my lies and an explanation of how you believe radiative heat transfer takes place.  I'm also curious where Curry got these uncertainty values.



First and biggest, that you have any proof that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate!!! Greatest lie to date!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for you to identify my lies and an explanation of how you believe radiative heat transfer takes place.  I'm also curious where Curry got these uncertainty values.



Your biggest and most persistent lie is that you have presented any actual evidence that CO2 drives the climate...you also claim that the present climate is unprecedented...you also claim that you have presented experimental evidence that proves that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause warming...and on and on and on.  One can tell you are lying by the fact that the words on the screen have your name above them.  The occasions where you have told the truth would be a much shorter list.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2014)

So, you've got nothing.  Got it.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 10, 2014)

daveman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I have no doubt your mother was a saint. She had to have been to have put up with your sorry arse.

 Then again, for all I know, you could have killed your mother and have been taking it out on people here ever since.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> So, you've got nothing.  Got it.



Hey liar, you got nothin!!!!!

hahahaahahaahahahahaha..no proof and yet you still lie


----------



## jc456 (Jul 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



sir you  have no dignity


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> So, you've got nothing.  Got it.



In typical dishonest fashion, you interpret your lack of evidence to support your claim as your opponent having nothing.  Completely predictable.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you've got nothing.  Got it.
> ...



It is what he does. In the end, you must blame his parents.  Anyone who could raise such a dishonest, ethically challenged child is a complete failure as a parent and as such, a failure at the most important task of their lives.  In short, a failure as a human being.


----------



## daveman (Jul 10, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...








Damn, but progressives are a humorless lot...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...








Look at that chart, DENIER!!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 10, 2014)

The poor deniers aren't even pretending they can talk about the science any more. They really have been spanked that badly.

Just for the record, do you other deniers agree with SSDD's peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics that contradict the last century of physics? You know, his strange claims that a cool object can't radiate towards a warm object, and that a gas under pressure keeps constantly generating heat.

Frank, jc, dave, how about? Want to talk about science for the first time ever? Come on, show us you''re capable of more than mindless screaming.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers aren't even pretending they can talk about the science any more. They really have been spanked that badly.
> 
> Just for the record, do you other deniers agree with SSDD's peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics that contradict the last century of physics? You know, his strange claims that a cool object can't radiate towards a warm object, and that a gas under pressure keeps constantly generating heat.
> 
> Frank, jc, dave, how about? Want to talk about science for the first time ever? Come on, show us you''re capable of more than mindless screaming.



Less ice = AGW

More ice = AGW

AGW =/= Science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

"The Deep Pacific Ocean Ate My Global Warming!!!" =/= Science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

AGW Experiment demonstrating how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1 -8 degrees (whichever comes first) and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

How Ass Clowns Posing as "Scientists" perform "Climate Research"

Not a Joke, those are genuine climate "Scientists"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

AGW Scientist warning of CO2 Control Knob!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 10, 2014)

^ Real Science






^ Fake Science


----------



## daveman (Jul 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!
> ...


...says the child pouting because others won't play pretend with him.  


Crick said:


> You realize (one hopes) that the quotations you give here, with the implication that they have some merit and some significance, are all quotations of fictional characters?  They are made up.  They don't exist.  These lines are the work of authors of fiction; and not very good fiction either.  Your quotation above should go to John McTiernan and your usual sig is, of course, the work of Steven King.


I know the difference between fiction and reality.  I am not an AGW cultist.


----------



## daveman (Jul 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers aren't even pretending they can talk about the science any more. They really have been spanked that badly.
> 
> Just for the record, do you other deniers agree with SSDD's peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics that contradict the last century of physics? You know, his strange claims that a cool object can't radiate towards a warm object, and that a gas under pressure keeps constantly generating heat.
> 
> Frank, jc, dave, how about? Want to talk about science for the first time ever? Come on, show us you''re capable of more than mindless screaming.



I've talked science with you.

You pretended I didn't.

You're not worth the effort.  All you merit is mockery.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




 Right, because we all know that calling me a pig-eating son of a whore is the very definition of dignified behavior.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 11, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Apparently you have lost the ability detect irony. Oh dear.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers aren't even pretending they can talk about the science any more. They really have been spanked that badly.
> 
> Just for the record, do you other deniers agree with SSDD's peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics that contradict the last century of physics? You know, his strange claims that a cool object can't radiate towards a warm object, and that a gas under pressure keeps constantly generating heat.
> 
> Frank, jc, dave, how about? Want to talk about science for the first time ever? Come on, show us you''re capable of more than mindless screaming.




Spanked...........

But nobody cares........not even an opinion anymore s0n.......


How much of the population thinks the scientists still haven't made their case???



*80% say........sTiLl nOt dEcIdEd*


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2014)

daveman said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I'm not the one pretending to be a gunslinger/poet/warrior.  You sound like one of the cosplay dweebs roaming comic cons. 



Crick said:


> You realize (one hopes) that the quotations you give here, with the implication that they have some merit and some significance, are all quotations of fictional characters?  They are made up.  They don't exist.  These lines are the work of authors of fiction; and not very good fiction either.  Your quotation above should go to John McTiernan and your usual sig is, of course, the work of Steven King.





daveman said:


> I know the difference between fiction and reality.  I am not an AGW cultist.



Then why your avatar, your sig and this reply about your pure and noble mother?  Are you hoping to impress us with your wide literary knowledge as you've hoped to intimidate us with the idea that you've gunned men down?  As I've said before, I don't know how old you _actually_ are, but you make yourself seem very much a child.

I know there is zero possibility that you will change anything here in response to my comments, but I would hope that as you move to other sites, other places, you might give reality - your reality - a try.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2014)

Crick said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Your post is way uncool dude!!!!! NC....tsk, tsk..................................NC= no class.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2014)

The only "problem" with CO2 is that some wackos think that it controls the climate.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2014)

​


SSDD said:


> The only "problem" with CO2 is that some wackos think that it controls the climate.



unfortunate for them, they can't prove it.  Someone failed to do a simple test.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The poor deniers aren't even pretending they can talk about the science any more. They really have been spanked that badly.
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> The only "problem" with CO2 is that some wackos think that it controls the climate.



its an article of Faith with the AGWCult

Thou shall not slander the prophet of AGWCult, the almighty CO2 molecule


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I find it "uncool" for people on discussion boards to imply a threat with guns.  Several posters here use avatars featuring guns.  They are both childish and offensive.  If I were managing this site I would ban avatars containing images of weapons or violent acts.  But, hey, I'm just a bleeding heart liberal whacko whose lost a brother and more than one friend to guns.  So, no offense, but your opinion of my comments doesn't mean shit.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 14, 2014)

You didn't lose anyone to a gun.  The gun is an object, it requires interaction with a human to be deadly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2014)




----------



## saveliberty (Jul 14, 2014)

Methane is actually a much better warming agent.  Problem is old guys simply aren't farting enough to effect the climate apparently.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 14, 2014)

I have identified who is stealing all the cold!

Some dude named Polar,  Polar Vortex...


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> You didn't lose anyone to a gun.  The gun is an object, it requires interaction with a human to be deadly.



Jesus, what a fucking revelation.  Did you just think of that?  You should tell more people.  That could probably be, like, a slogan or something.  That'll stop those gun-control nuts dead in their tracks, won't it.  Yeah...


----------

