Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[CultureCitizen]

Like I said before if a republicrat allowed millions of federal dollars to go into ANY sort of company, and it was found that a significant amount of money was returned in the form of campaign donations to the GOP through whatever avenue and that the company failed to produce something of value, the media would have hordes of people in the streets with pitchforks and torches. People would go to prison, I promise you.

Not so, who went to jail after 2008? There was corruption on all levels . It is naive to think corruption happens only between the democrats and green tech companies.

Do you have an example of the Bush admin granting millions of dollars to a company that went tits up afterwards?

I would agree that the bailouts were wrong, but the messiah encouraged that and more.

Well , actually Bush dad protected Bush jr quite a lot in spite of his rather dubious ability as a manager. Though you could well argue those were lucky strikes.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio.

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.

 

[flacaltenn]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

 

[flacaltenn]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio.

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.

I'm kinda sensitive to this "cow thing". Because it's a significant fraction of what gets charged to mankind emissions of CO2. And there's NO WAY -- that's a fair assessment. Because domestic cattle largely replaced MASSIVE herds of wild stock (deer, buffalo, etc) that pre-existed the development of farming.. Should NOT be charged to manmade emissions without an adequate adjustment..

 

[CultureCitizen]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

 

[Pete7469]

Well , actually Bush dad protected Bush jr quite a lot in spite of his rather dubious ability as a manager. Though you could well argue those were lucky strikes.

Can you specifically point to anything, even rumors or conspiracy theories that suggest any republicrat regime since Harding that can be offered as examples of corruption on the level of "green" companies getting millions of dollars from government grants, and money from those companies, even from employees' salaries going into republicrat campaigns?

Everyone should be so outraged about Solyndra alone, that US Marshals would be terrified to not have people in custody, let alone the fact that Solyndra is only one example even if it's the worst. The media is clearly complicit in this scandal because it's a leftist scandal and they're compelled to minimize it. Yet because even republicrat political whores are complicit there has been no effort to hold anyone accountable.

This is why conservatives are determined to elect people who will severely reduce the power of the government. If you take away their power to waste money, to interfere in commerce, and avoid prosecution a whole lot this corruption disappears.

 

[Pete7469]

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

My position is that there has been no significant change in temperature in 200 years. That said there's no man made anything.

We will never see an emergency situation due to our own impact, or that we can do anything about.

I don't care what kind of fuels we use, or where they come from unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that it causes detriment to humanity.

For centuries we used whale fat for light. It caused fires. Then we found out about kerosene and natural gas. Then electricity.

Eventually we will figure out a way to harness natural shit like wind, hydro, nuclear and solar in order to have a totally reliable source for our energy needs. We might have cars that can run for hundreds of thousands of miles using nothing but solar power and a battery technology yet to be innovated. Maybe even fuckin shit that can fly.

All of these innovations will be successful based on their merits, not through subsidies. If these technologies have to be subsidized it is because they can't be produced for a price reasonable for people to choose them over existing available and affordable choices.

Once Rockefeller figured out how to refine crude into reliable kerosene, he saved the whales.

Once J.P. Morgan consolidated the patents and made the mass transmission of electricity possible, he lit the entire country so bright it could be seen on Alpha Centauri in 1904.

There were incredible strides made throughout the 1900's that shaped human history and they were all accomplished through competitive endeavors of the greatest minds mankind has ever known. Sure in some cases the government offered incentives for military and space technology, but there was always a result. With "green" industry there has been little if any progress. That's why I say fuck "green" bullshit. Let it sink or swim. Unless it can make enough of a profit it will never be invested in, and if it can't even deliver enough revenue to compensate people who keep it running it's a fools errand because the entire premise behind "green energy" is a giant steaming pile of bullshit that would have it's own magnetic field if it were tangible.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

Lets address your perception.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise. In other words, no man made signature is present!

So tell me, where exactly is mans input signal and what has it done to earths atmosphere and temp? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Further more; The paleo records show we are in a long term cooling trend approaching the next glacial cycle.

If you gauge the patterns we are over due for our fall into the next glacial cycle. Our current holecene is near its end.

Even this shows that a 2 deg C rise or fall "trigger", no matter what cause, is pure ludicrous hype and bull shit. The current cycle shows well over a 2 deg C variation.

 

[jc456]

I remember when a scientist speculated that ulcers were caused by bacteria. His theory ran against the grain of every scientific belief up till that time, and he was derided for it, however, he was later vendicated

This is the type of opposition one is faced within the scientific community when new theories that challenge accepted theories are given. Add to that political power opposing you as well as the politics within the scientific community, and you will find yourself not only derided, but without a job and maybe in prison like climate deniers in places like Australia.

I'm not really of the opinion that the climate is not warming. After all, other planets in the solar system are also warming. The only question is, what is causing it and what are the far reaching implications? This type of inquiry is not just of facts, it is making sense of the facts. It is making the facts correlate into a theory. Neither side can prove their position. All they have are theories.

So you have no opinion

 

[CultureCitizen]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

 

[Billy_Bob]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

One problem with your hypothesis, the residency time for CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 40 years ( could be as little as 7 years). It is not 100 years or 1000 years as postulated by our EPA and the IPCC which would allow us to build up exponentially and ultimately cause rapid rise in CO2 levels. A recent paper lays the driving premise of the EPA and IPCC waste..

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims

Even then, the water (convection cycle) is not slowed by CO2 and it by itself, will allow heat escape faster than CO2 can retard it.

 

[westwall]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

I suggest you look at the historical record which shows that those claims have never happened when the temps were even warmer than what they warn about. The Holocene Thermal Maximum was at least 5.5 degrees C warmer than the present day and not one bad thing happened. Not one.

 

[jc456]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.

 

[westwall]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio.

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.

Read the Toshiba link. Their reactor uses depleted uranium. Far safer than any other fuel used on the planet. The density of the cows is immaterial. As flacaltenn so ably pointed out there were MILLIONS of critters before man started raising cows. There were a minimum of 60 million bison on the Great Plains in the 1850's. The USDA says there are 98.4 million cows in the US at this moment. The cows now are kept in limited ranges compared to the bison and wild cattle that lived in the 1850's so yet again a concern is shown to be no big deal when actual facts and figures are presented.

 

[westwall]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

 

[westwall]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion. But facts are what matter.

Solar is not an "alternative". It is a peaker technology, applicable in only certain regions for large scale generation and it requires a RELIABLE full capacity backup. The MOST solar you could apply in a well designed grid is about 10%. And that is related to the peak daytime demand. And OIL has virtually NOTHING to do with generating electricity. A point that MOST leftists simply miss.

If you don't like fossil fuels, don't pervert science or use GW as an excuse for every ailment with the environment. Don't fuck with people's brains by confusing "carbon" with CO2 (and calling CO2 "a pollutant"). Do it HONESTLY..

The actual warming power of CO2 --- BY ITSELF---- without all of the hysterical, imagined feedbacks and multipliers is about 1degC/doubling. We have not reached even the FIRST doubling since the Indust. Age began. MIGHT reach it by 2030 or 2040. And THEN --- you need TWICE as much added CO2 to get the same 1degC. So pre-Indust was 280ppm. 1st doubling is 560ppm (we are at about 400ppm). The NEXT doubling after 2030 or so would have to reach 1120ppm.. By then --- a lot will have changed. You do the math on that and figure out "what percentage" of this little temperature blip is man-made and what FUTURE projections should be..

After we do all that -- we can chat about any of the hotly contested and debatable theories of "accelerated warming" that the GW zealots used to frighten people and demagogue for ulterior motives..

 

[flacaltenn]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

I like the way you think about the problem. With a little more attention to the debate -- you are prime candidate for making your OWN decisions about what's true and what's been severely misrepresented.

That comment about Delayed effects of CO2 -- indeed ANY thermal forcing -- is generally acknowledged, but treated very badly in the modeling and gross simplications that dominate GW science. For instance, there is this vital "constant" called Climate Sensitivity that INCLUDES (in theory) both the short term reaction of the atmos/surface temperatures and the LONGER term reactions. However, a LOT of the work reduces this number to ONE hare-brained global # for the whole planet surface, regardless of whether it's arctic or equatorial, and regardless of time delays or storages in the system.

And you MIGHT already be ahead of most climate science with thinking about those delays and storage features, since GW science just suddenly discovered that the oceans are the major "sink" of thermal storage about 6 years ago now. So a lot of early scary work in the field looks pretty ridiculous even 10 years later..

Being trained and having applied a lot of complex systems modeling -- I KNOW it would be truly amazing if a complex system like the Earth's climate was a simple linear response to ONE input variable and expected to mirror that without integration, or storage or delays. But YET --- that was the impression that Climate geeks gave the public when they showed the highly identical CO2 and temperature curves..