Conservatives waking up to climate change

[westwall]

Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one. If you're interested, study science. Not politics.

No it hasn't. They've waved their hands a lot and changed the name a few times now and have backpedalled every time their claims have been actually checked but no, they haven't
explained anything. Other than they don't know what the hell they're talking about of course.

 

[PMZ]

Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one. If you're interested, study science. Not politics.

No it hasn't. They've waved their hands a lot and changed the name a few times now and have backpedalled every time their claims have been actually checked but no, they haven't
explained anything. Other than they don't know what the hell they're talking about of course.

Your opinion of the accomplishments of science has no value to anyone. Sciences view of your accomplishments is the standard by which your scientific acumen is judged by the world.

Show us why any other view should make sense. In what way are you qualified to judge science?

 

[Saigon]

Conservatives waking up to climate change

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

 

[westwall]

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

Really? What caused the Minoan Warming Period? What caused the Roman Warming Period? What caused the Medieval Warming Period? What caused the cooling periods in between?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period — times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries — as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can’t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend.

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we’ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists’ reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Medieval Warm Period not so random « Know

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

Please refer to the statement made by a moderator on the "16% of Americans..." thread.

Then come back and adjust your statement here.

I won't report this, as its possible you missed that comment.

Nope sorry, it doesn't help me... You are a proxy monkey..

And please report away crybaby.. No adjustment needed. I still think you're A bs artist...

 

[Ernie S.]

So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

NO!!!!!!! Scientists are able to postulate causes of various warming periods. Just like they are able to postulate that New York City will be under water by 2020.

Their guesses are based on computer models designed with very limited knowledge of how climate works.

The models themselves are similar to a push poll with parameters designed to obtain a desired result.

 

[Saigon]

Erine -

Actually, models have almost nothing to do with this.

Try reading the text linked above with an open mind, and I imagine it will all make more sense.

 

[PMZ]

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

Really? What caused the Minoan Warming Period? What caused the Roman Warming Period? What caused the Medieval Warming Period? What caused the cooling periods in between?

If you really want answers to those questions there are some requirements. Education, curiosity, research, time, and effort. If you can't scrape up enough of those qualities, ignorance on those topics is the only alternative.

 

[PMZ]

Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

NO!!!!!!! Scientists are able to postulate causes of various warming periods. Just like they are able to postulate that New York City will be under water by 2020.

Their guesses are based on computer models designed with very limited knowledge of how climate works.

The models themselves are similar to a push poll with parameters designed to obtain a desired result.

I agree that if you mean limited in the sense of not complete, there is much yet to be learned.

I see no evidence from you however that would suggest any credibility in knowing where those limits are. You are stating what you wish was true.

 

[Ernie S.]

Erine -

Actually, models have almost nothing to do with this.

Try reading the text linked above with an open mind, and I imagine it will all make more sense.

I've read all the bullshit and found it to be just that.

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

 

[Ernie S.]

Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance.

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.

NO!!!!!!! Scientists are able to postulate causes of various warming periods. Just like they are able to postulate that New York City will be under water by 2020.

Their guesses are based on computer models designed with very limited knowledge of how climate works.

The models themselves are similar to a push poll with parameters designed to obtain a desired result.

I agree that if you mean limited in the sense of not complete, there is much yet to be learned.

I see no evidence from you however that would suggest any credibility in knowing where those limits are. You are stating what you wish was true.

As are you. All of the dire predictions have failed to happen, you have seen rafts of emails proving that data has been manipulated, you've even changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", but still blindly accept the premise that man is having a major effect on the earth's climate. And you have the balls to question MY credibility?
Do you have to walk backwards and drag them suckers behind you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

So any data that doesn't fit the AGW religion is controversial or disputed, but any that has been proven to be manipulated is accepted on blind faith. OK I got it now.

I guess you're not an atheist after all.

 

[PMZ]

NO!!!!!!! Scientists are able to postulate causes of various warming periods. Just like they are able to postulate that New York City will be under water by 2020.

Their guesses are based on computer models designed with very limited knowledge of how climate works.

The models themselves are similar to a push poll with parameters designed to obtain a desired result.

I agree that if you mean limited in the sense of not complete, there is much yet to be learned.

I see no evidence from you however that would suggest any credibility in knowing where those limits are. You are stating what you wish was true.

As are you. All of the dire predictions have failed to happen, you have seen rafts of emails proving that data has been manipulated, you've even changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", but still blindly accept the premise that man is having a major effect on the earth's climate. And you have the balls to question MY credibility?
Do you have to walk backwards and drag them suckers behind you?

The difference between you and I is that I have thousands of scientists advising me through the IPCC. They have access to enormous resources to gather data and assemble models of the real world. On your side there is you and a handful of cranks with zero credibility and no resources, whose only output is to attempt to sow some doubt on the works of others. This is not a fair fight. You are unarmed.

 

[Saigon]

And you have the balls to question MY credibility?

Yes.

In an era when every one of the 60 major scientific organisations confirms AGW, any sensible person is going to figure they are probably on to something. At least, any sane person is going to listen to what they have to say.

So yes, I do question why anyone would run in the opposite direction from science because they don't like the term 'climate change'. It makes no sense at all.

 

[Saigon]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

So any data that doesn't fit the AGW religion is controversial or disputed, but any that has been proven to be manipulated is accepted on blind faith. OK I got it now.

I guess you're not an atheist after all.

No, you don't get it at all - and it is very unlikely you ever will get it.

Understanding this topic means looking at it with an open mind, and without political blinkers of any kind or colour.

If you can do that, you will get the point. If not - then you won't.

 

[Ernie S.]

I agree that if you mean limited in the sense of not complete, there is much yet to be learned.

I see no evidence from you however that would suggest any credibility in knowing where those limits are. You are stating what you wish was true.

As are you. All of the dire predictions have failed to happen, you have seen rafts of emails proving that data has been manipulated, you've even changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", but still blindly accept the premise that man is having a major effect on the earth's climate. And you have the balls to question MY credibility?
Do you have to walk backwards and drag them suckers behind you?

The difference between you and I is that I have thousands of scientists advising me through the IPCC. They have access to enormous resources to gather data and assemble models of the real world. On your side there is you and a handful of cranks with zero credibility and no resources, whose only output is to attempt to sow some doubt on the works of others. This is not a fair fight. You are unarmed.

Did you read the leaked IPCC emails? Who has zero credibility?

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie -

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.

So any data that doesn't fit the AGW religion is controversial or disputed, but any that has been proven to be manipulated is accepted on blind faith. OK I got it now.

I guess you're not an atheist after all.

No, you don't get it at all - and it is very unlikely you ever will get it.

Understanding this topic means looking at it with an open mind, and without political blinkers of any kind or colour.

If you can do that, you will get the point. If not - then you won't.

Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close. Explain fudged data and efforts to discredit conflicting studies. Just what was the "nature trick"?
I have great concern for the environment as a life long hunter and sportsman, not as a politician, and certainly, as a "scientist" whos grants and salary are dependent on supporting an agenda.
I approached AGW with an open mind. Motives and modus operandi of people who were telling me my SUV would flood Manhattan and South Beach influenced my position a lot more than arbitrary computer models and simplistic theories.

Sorry. Gore Mann and Jones are all discredited and everything they have come in contact with is suspect.

 

[mamooth]

Did you read the leaked IPCC emails? Who has zero credibility?

The people who lied about the emails, of course. You know, the denialists.

Seriously, I've read the emails. I saw how the denialists lied their asses off about them. You won't be able to snow me with BS fabrications, so you'll have to use real evidence.