Climate change

[friendlyfire]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

 

[DarkFury]

 

[hortysir]

1.

2. It's not Politics

3. Check out Environment sub-forum, it's been argued over ad nauseum

 

[Mr. H.]

Let's destroy entire industries, de-employ millions, and spend trillions of dollars in an effort to reduce the mean global temperature by .018 degrees 40 years hence.

 

[mamooth]

Bad plan, Mr. H. Good thing you're the only person pushing it.

 

[friendlyfire]

Oh my bad hortysir

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

 

[Crick]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

 

[hortysir]

Oh my bad hortysir

S'all good

 

[jc456]

Bad plan, Mr. H. Good thing you're the only person pushing it.

but that's your plan. Oh, wait, you don't want to inflict and empower CO2 emission limits?

 

[jc456]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

From what I can gather I would say we know too little about the natural cycles. It was a lot colder in the 1700s after it was warmer for the previous few hundred....but how is it possible to measure it accurately?? So are we just really comparing the 1970s with today after a slightly warmer cycle??

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

Greg

that a boy!!!!! Welcome to the skeptic side on this forum.

 

[jc456]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

 

[jc456]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

yep,

 

[mamooth]

That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.

That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Real simple.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has limited ability BY ITSELF to warm the atmosphere. About 1degC per doubling of concentration.

The GWarming theory states that CO2 is just the "TRIGGER" to a postulated series of MULTIPLICATIONS that would result in 6 to 8degC by 2100..

The skeptic problem is with the magical multiplications part of the theory. All the MEASURED (empirical) modern evidence points to much lower multipliers. Since the Industrial Rev. we haven't completed the 1st doubling of CO2 into the atmos --- and the observed temp rise is WAAAAY closer to the CO2 ONLY estimate than it is to the Warmer's magical multipliers. In fact --- the Climate community has severely revised DOWNWARD those estimates of multiplication during the past 3 or 4 years.

All that plus --- the bias in funding to find MAN-MADE causes of the warming and not learn about the fundamentals of the climate system impartially. That bias has caused the MAN-MADE contribution to our little temp spike to be over-estimated. It is more likely that man's emissions are 1/2 or less of the "problem". With natural variations and cyclical events we don't know enough about being the remainder.

And it's a socio-politcal-economic cause with a life, and an industry of it's own..

 

[jc456]

That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.

That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

So dude/dudette, what is your solution? you still have failed to post up what it is you're plan is to correct the injustice of mankind? Got that yet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

yep,

That's funny.

 

[gtopa1]

I'm just really interested to see the arguments against the concept of climate change and whether or not you believe it's due to mankind

I'm just really interested in why you say you're interested in "the arguments AGAINST the concept of climate change". Did you intend to begin your examination with a bias?

If you want to see an enormous amount of information about global warming and its causes, go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and have a look at the fifth assessment report (AR5). It is large, but you could start with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and, if you are still interested (and perhaps concerned about our future and what we might do about it) Working Group I, the Physical Science Basis. It is an assessment of published, peer reviewed research done by climate scientists around the world.

And tell him now, it states there is a pause. Go ahead, let him know that. Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases. And will also validate that climate change is normal.

Now you may want to go to that 'excess heat' deal in the oceans again, but that hasn't been explained exactly what is meant by 'excessive heat'. Frank and now I are interested in the definition.

Which, confirms that adding CO2 does not cause temperature increases.

Did you ever figure out what saturation means?

You have the saturation point for CO2 at STP???? lol

You may mean "tipping point"....and I've been hearing about that since 1975...when the "tipping point" for a new ice age was on offer.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

That's a fudged and fabricated propaganda plot by paid professional arch-liar Steve Goddard.

That would be why every scienitst ignores such fakery. Scientists know deniers are lying their asses off about everything, so they can't be fooled by a cut-and-paste of a crazy lie. It does fool the denier cultists, of course. Their cult forbids them from looking at any data from outside the cult, so they simply have no idea that they're being spoonfed dishonest nonsense.

I'm VERY skeptical about the future being a dead world. Frankly that's just greenie crap!!

So tell me: what about the comparisons is wrong? Only a blithering idiot would resort to stupid and inaccurate diatribes against scientists without showing what is actually wrong with the data, wouldn't they.
Greg