Human Caused Global Warming

[Wyld Kard]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

 

[westwall]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

Indeed. The IPCC wants 76 TRILLION. More than the combined world GDP for ten years. Yes indeed. Follow the money.

 

[westwall]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference. Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably. Good luck.

 

[idb]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference. Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably. Good luck.

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

The fact that ice exists at both poles indicates that the earth is presently in an ice age whether you would call it an ice age or not. Google the term "present ice age" and you will get plenty of credible sources stating that the earth is in an ice age...we are experiencing an interglacial period at present but the ice age is not over and won't be for a good long time yet...the fact is that the earth is coming out of an ice age and as you can see by the graph of earth temperature history I provided, the temperature has a good long way to climb before the ice age ends....the fact that the temperature increases as the earth exits an ice age should come as no surprise to anyone..

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

You are making a lot of assumptions there...the first one is that CO2 has anything at all to do with climate other than the fact that it is a gas that follows temperature around...ice cores show us clearly that CO2 follows temperature...it doesn't lead...and paper after paper keep coming out finding ever smaller climate sensitivity to CO2 vs the IPCC and climate science propaganda....eventually, the climate sensitivity to CO2 will be found very close to zero....the only effect CO2 has on climate is its contribution to the actual weight of the atmosphere. As I pointed out...relative to earth history, the present 400ppm of CO2 is abnormally low....The average CO2 concentration on earth is in excess of 1000ppm and as the ice age drags on to its inevitable end, the same thing is going to happen again....CO2 will reach normal levels regardless of what we want.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

Visit the paleomap project...there are some interesting maps of previous climate and the position of the continents...drastic climate shifts don't depend nearly as much on land movement around the globe as you seem to think.

For example, 14 million years ago, the land masses looked like this:

Not much has changed since then... note there was no ice at the north pole and little if any at the south...Coastlines were different due to the fact that there was much more water in the oceans due to less ice.

The land masses have not moved much since that time..and yet, here is what the earth looked like 18K years ago during the last glacial maximum.

Ocean currents would have still been running much as they are today and yet, antarctic ice was almost to south american...and ice sheets extended down south of the great lakes and covered much of europe. The land masses have shifted almost none since that time and this is what the earth looks like now..

Clearly there has been a major shift in climate since the last glacial maximum but the land masses haven't moved appreciably. If you go back into history, you see further evidence that drastic changes in climate happened without drastic land movement.

This is what the earth looked like during the late Carboniferous period...100 million years ago. During that time, extensive rain forests covered most of pangea which had northern and southern deserts...Ice covered the south pole.

The Permian period, 5 million years later didn't see much change in land position, ocean currents certainly wouldn't have altered in any drastic way and yet, the ice had extended from the south and most of the southern hemisphere was covered...the tropical rain forests started turning into coal at this time....by the end of the Permian period, again, not much land movement, the ice had melted from the south pole, the tropical rain forests had been replaced with temperate forests and much of the desert had greened...it was during this time that an ice cap began to form over the north pole...

So you see, climate can change drastically with or without appreciable land movement...human beings have seen that since our time on earth began...we have moved from glacial period to interglacial with practically no land movement...the only real differences humans have experienced has been due to melting ice which was not due to land movement.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

Better safe than sorry is a terrible way to look at things....if you look at history, more often people have ended up being sorry that they tried to be safe. Acting on an imagined unknown opens the door wide for unintended consequences and human beings have seen plenty of them. If hard evidence existed that CO2 was changing the climate rather than the weak corroboratory evidence, data tampering, and complete rejection of the scientific method, I would be on board...I am not because there just isn't any evidence that anything at all is happening in the climate that is even approaching the limits of natural variability.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,
Though my knowledge of science is limited, there are things I can tell you that no rational person can doubt. To start out, those who wish to maintain the status quo will say anything, ANYTHING, to keep things from changing.

Again, history doesn't really bear out your claims...it is more likely that people who want change will say anything to get the change they wanted...do you think stalin, and lenin, and pol pot, and hitler, etc told the people what they had to look forward to when their change eventually came to pass or do you think they say whatever they thought was necessary to initiate the change and the consequences be damned?

Look back through history with an honest eye and you will see that more often than not, the torch of progress in reality is a devouring conflagration.

I have to wonder if you can even believe that plastic debris is accumulating in oceanic gyres.

True...there are some serious environmental problems that exist...problems that are real and need serious attention... Unfortunately, the global warming hoax sucks all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure from the vaults. We can't address the serious and addressable problems till this hoax is sent to the dustbin of history.

Also, it is a fact that human caused global warming exists.

That is not a fact at all. Describe anything happening in the climate today or for the past 500 years that is outside the bounds of natural variability.

I was watching a documentary called "Greedy Lying Bastards." In it they showed the CEO of Exxon saying at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality. And he had far more reason to deny it than you probably do.

A documentary produced by who? Exxon stands to make its billions with a climate crisis or without...in fact, they stand to make more if the climate crisis continues...climate science on the other hand depends on crisis for their present state of wealth...who is more likely to lie...and what the hell does an MBA at exxon know about climate anyway?

It isn't in my imagination that last year all of Greenland, even mountain tops, underwent melt for the first time ever. It isn't in my imagination that wherever ice is replaced with water, the greenhouse effect increases. It isn't im my imagination that last year there were places in the far north that saw 90 degree temperatures for the first time ever. Etc. times zillions.

The rate of sea level increase decelerated during the 20th century...it didn't accelerate as would be the case if the ice were melting as you believe.

 

[SSDD]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

 

[idb]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

 

[SSDD]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The climate is always changing. How is the present change outside the boundaries of natural variations

 

[jc456]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The climate is always changing. How is the present change outside the boundaries of natural variations

nothing like rehashing everything again. Newbies that now think they have all the answers. This is just too funny. I ask the guy to provie his post and he states that enough graphs have been displayed. hah, what is it skooks calls them? oh yeah k00ks!!!!!!

 

[westwall]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference. Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably. Good luck.

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

No, you're willing to suspend your ability to think. That's all. You don't have to be a climatologist to know what the scientific method is, and how it is supposed to be practiced. Further it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the climatologists abandoned the scientific method and have resorted to simple falsification of records to support their now failed theory. Additionally the 97% meme has been disproven on so many different occasions I have lost count and yet the willfully ignorant keep trotting that number out as if it means something.

It just means you are either too lazy, or too stupid, to think for yourself. That's all.

 

[westwall]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

 

[gipper]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference. Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably. Good luck.

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

No, you're willing to suspend your ability to think. That's all. You don't have to be a climatologist to know what the scientific method is, and how it is supposed to be practiced. Further it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the climatologists abandoned the scientific method and have resorted to simple falsification of records to support their now failed theory. Additionally the 97% meme has been disproven on so many different occasions I have lost count and yet the willfully ignorant keep trotting that number out as if it means something.

It just means you are either too lazy, or too stupid, to think for yourself. That's all.

Agreed.

It is clear that the AGW cultist is easily duped by the elites. Anyone capable of thinking for themselves, should know better than to believe anything promoted by proven liars.

 

[Mustang]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

 

[jc456]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mustang]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what peer review is?

 

[jc456]

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what peer review is?

yes I do, do you?

 

[Mustang]

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what peer review is?

yes I do, do you?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what peer review is?

yes I do, do you?

So, you know what peer review is, but you don't care about it? Why? Because you don't like the fact that the science subjected to peer review scrutiny over several years and several studies, you decide that peer review is not worth caring about and must somehow be wrong? Then you're no longer engaging in a review of science; you've entered the area of faith. That's fine if and when you want to believe that Jesus bodily rose toward heaven after his resurrection, or if you want to believe that your girlfriend isn't cheating on you even when she's not home at 3AM. It's also fine for the mother who doesn't believe her son committed a crime because she loves him and he was always such a good boy, despite all the evidence that he's actually guilty of the crime of which he's accused. So, like I said, faith is fine when it comes to those kinds of things. But science isn't built on faith. Theories have to be tested, and anthropomorphic climate change has been subjected to peer review and hasn't been discredited despite the fact that certain people in certain circles outside of the scientific mainstream have developed alternate theories to account (they say) for the increased warming. What THOSE people need to do is to subject their theories to peer review for careful analysis. If they're confident of the outcome, it shouldn't be a problem to prove their theories to scientists as opposed to just convincing laypeople with no scientific background.

 

[cultsmasher]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

 

[cultsmasher]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

gipper,
Human caused global warming is real.