Human Caused Global Warming

[Billy_Bob]

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The book is a left wing rant, low on facts, yet high on Stalinist/Marxist control principals... Not one of my recommended books to any one unless your learning how to create propaganda.

 

[Mustang]

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The book is a left wing rant, low on facts, yet high on Stalinist/Marxist control principals... Not one of my recommended books to any one unless your learning how to create propaganda.

Have you read it?

 

[flacaltenn]

flacalten,
Impared personal judgment? That is your opinion. As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup. And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming. I will start out by restating what you already know. Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons. The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.

It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises. You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped. Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing. During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas. Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming. But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels. Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on. For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing. And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more. Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis. I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

This is what really matters. What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things. It's being caused by humans. As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way. Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

Here are the facts. If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you. Capitalism is a concept from HELL! Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities. Money determines what is right and wrong. Even if it means the destruction of the earth. Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats. What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system. But it can't be done through capitalism.

This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy. But therein lies another problem. Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor? That shows the perfect analogy for humanity. (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.

That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear. Though this need not be done through slaughter. But if it is done, to whom will it be done to. It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human. That is why I am a White separatist. The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own. There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this. Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd. So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.

Wow. Global Warming is a convienent excuse for mass genocide... who knew? You are a white supremist who has just lunched on bad science and used it fo feed your warped conclusions. LOTS of stuff you dont know. I mean other than the number of human species that you imagine exist. Lets start with your comparison of volcanic emissions versus man. That is irrelevent. What you should start with is the following. The 32GTon of manmade CO2 is bettercompared to the 700GTon produced by nature every year on this planet. Almost all of is recycled into the lands and oceans INCLUDING a large chunk of what man emits. So 1\20 of the NATURAL carbon cycle is what your 32GTon represents. Second item to put that huge number into better perspective is that just 1 lowly species alone puts about 1/20th of what man puts into the when you combine its CO2 and methane emissions.. its the termite.. Isnt that a better way to look at the big number?

Good luck with your green excuse for white supremacy..

 

[flacaltenn]

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The book is a left wing rant, low on facts, yet high on Stalinist/Marxist control principals... Not one of my recommended books to any one unless your learning how to create propaganda.

Have you read it?

Lots of hype and misrepresentation of science concerning 2nd hand smoke. Not so much for the DIRECT effects of smoking.. BOTH sides whacked science up the side of the head on that one. Should be a warning about mixing politics and science right there. Thing is, when one side does it, the other side generally feels the need to join in and abuse science as well

 

[Billy_Bob]

Have you read it?

Yes. One of my lib professors a while back made it mandatory. I passed his class with an A and after I left his class i tor it up in a book review. since then we have talked many times about his views and mine. No one will win that debate, at least not in his or my mind..

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
What I had to say to flacaltenn is no evicence of any kind "Ploy." Human caused global warming is real. What I pointed out to flacaltenn was that there were underlying causes to it. As I said, look at the graph showing the rise in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That isn't a "ploy." So don't try to use my political beliefs as another tool in your human caused global warming deniers toolkit.

Sir, you are a joke! As i have shown with empirical evidence before the rates of warming are statistically the same from 1900-1950 and 1951-2000, According the the IPCC and the US EPA endangerment finding all rise prior to 1950 was natural variation and all rise after 1950 was man caused. How did you stop natural variation? What did you do?

With statistically no change in rate of rise despite a rise in CO2 the forcing is 0.0 dec C. SO what is attributed to man and what is natural process? When natural variation is considered CO2 has little or NO MEASURABLE EFFECT!

It is an amazing thing, the alarmist thought process, facts mean nothing to them..

Billy_Bob,
If anybody is a joke around here, it is you. Like it or not, CO2 and global temperature is going up. Maybe if you looked at a measurement in the last five minutes, it may show otherwise. But the overall tendancy is going up, up, up. You also talk about natural variation. Well let's just go to a parallel universe and look at the earth just as it is without humans. Comparing the two might give you a little better viewpoint on which to make an accurate measurment.

 

[cultsmasher]

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/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

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

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

So tell me again how you all STOPPED natural variation.. I do not see a CO2 signal in this at all. I am all ears!

Billy_Bob,
Look at the graphs that show both CO2 levels and global temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If you can't see the pattern, there's no hope for you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

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

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

So tell me again how you all STOPPED natural variation.. I do not see a CO2 signal in this at all. I am all ears!

Billy_Bob,
Look at the graphs that show both CO2 levels and global temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If you can't see the pattern, there's no hope for you.

Got to love that disconnect... That same trend continues to today.. We just haven't updated the plot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 always lags temperature. Before each and every major cool down there is a spike in both temperature and CO2 followed by rapid cooling. we have seen both in the last 20 years. Given the duration of the Holocene period we are over due for our cool down into the next glacial cycle. I wonder if this ever crosses the minds of those in power?

It will be clearly evident in about 7-10 years which we are dealing with. Cyclical 60 year trend or 90,000 year glacial cycle... a 2 deg C drop or a 5 deg C drop...

 

[cultsmasher]

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.

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Mustang,
I suggested that my sister rent a documentary that is along the lines of the book you mentioned. It is called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." As far as I know, she never watched it. Though even if I gave her a bootleg copy, I doubt if she would watch it. I think she just wants to believe what she wants to believe. I have known many people to be that way on a wide range of topics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Mustang,
I suggested that my sister rent a documentary that is along the lines of the book you mentioned. It is called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." As far as I know, she never watched it. Though even if I gave her a bootleg copy, I doubt if she would watch it. I think she just wants to believe what she wants to believe. I have known many people to be that way on a wide range of topics.

Nice... steal something, someones property and give it to another because you think its value belongs to them.... Marx would be so proud...

 

[Mustang]

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.

But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, conservatives have still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they singlehandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing. Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.

But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, they've still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they highhandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing. Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.

Your Delusions of grandeur precede you.. I guess real scientists are to stupid to understand... Only a fool thinks that the science is in any way settled.. Tell me how you stopped natural variation? Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

[cultsmasher]

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The book is a left wing rant, low on facts, yet high on Stalinist/Marxist control principals... Not one of my recommended books to any one unless your learning how to create propaganda.

Have you read it?

Lots of hype and misrepresentation of science concerning 2nd hand smoke. Not so much for the DIRECT effects of smoking.. BOTH sides whacked science up the side of the head on that one. Should be a warning about mixing politics and science right there. Thing is, when one side does it, the other side generally feels the need to join in and abuse science as well

flacalten,
Impared personal judgment? That is your opinion. As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup. And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming. I will start out by restating what you already know. Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons. The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.

It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises. You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped. Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing. During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas. Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming. But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels. Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on. For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing. And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more. Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis. I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

This is what really matters. What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things. It's being caused by humans. As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way. Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

Here are the facts. If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you. Capitalism is a concept from HELL! Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities. Money determines what is right and wrong. Even if it means the destruction of the earth. Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats. What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system. But it can't be done through capitalism.

This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy. But therein lies another problem. Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor? That shows the perfect analogy for humanity. (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.

That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear. Though this need not be done through slaughter. But if it is done, to whom will it be done to. It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human. That is why I am a White separatist. The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own. There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this. Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd. So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.

Wow. Global Warming is a convienent excuse for mass genocide... who knew? You are a white supremist who has just lunched on bad science and used it fo feed your warped conclusions. LOTS of stuff you dont know. I mean other than the number of human species that you imagine exist. Lets start with your comparison of volcanic emissions versus man. That is irrelevent. What you should start with is the following. The 32GTon of manmade CO2 is bettercompared to the 700GTon produced by nature every year on this planet. Almost all of is recycled into the lands and oceans INCLUDING a large chunk of what man emits. So 1\20 of the NATURAL carbon cycle is what your 32GTon represents. Second item to put that huge number into better perspective is that just 1 lowly species alone puts about 1/20th of what man puts into the when you combine its CO2 and methane emissions.. its the termite.. Isnt that a better way to look at the big number?

Good luck with your green excuse for white supremacy..

flacaltenn,
First of all, there is no doubt that my partiotic views can help your argument. But appealing to the brainwashed masses doesn't help your arguments much. Like it or not, there are too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support. What's your solution. I have heard of an experiment concerning another solution. Some scientists took a number of rats and put them into a cage together so that they would live in overcrowded conditions. If I remember right, they did this experiment a number of times. Always, all the rats died. It didn't stop when there were a more livable number of rats in the cage. With a knowledge of the hell they were put through, they basically figured that nonexistance was better. I don't know how much eating of babies this involved. Go ahead and call this "bad science."

Next, you bring up human species. Did you read my thread, "What is a "Species." It too should give you something to disagree with. Then you bring up the thing I stated about all the earths' volcanoes each year putting out 200 million tons of CO2. While each year humans were responsible for putting out 26.8 billion tons. Well whoever put these figures out, argue with them. Not me.

Then you bring up termites and methane. I think you left out all the methane things like cows and humans emit. But compared to what a temperature driven methane release could cause, those are probably nothing. Maybe I mentioned it before, but years ago I saw a couple of things where people were punching holes in lake ice up north. It was pretty impressive seeing them setting the escaping methane on fire. More recently, I heard of a couple places in the far north seeing temperatures into the 90's. Which apparently has never happened before. No doubt this will cause even more tundra thawing and methane release.

One of two people are right here. Either me or you. As I said before, if I am wrong, big deal. But if you are wrong, WOW! Also, I suppose I should thank you for lifting your slowdown curse.

 

[cultsmasher]

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/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

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

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

So tell me again how you all STOPPED natural variation.. I do not see a CO2 signal in this at all. I am all ears!

Billy_Bob,
Look at the graphs that show both CO2 levels and global temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If you can't see the pattern, there's no hope for you.

View attachment 32168

Got to love that disconnect... That same trend continues to today.. We just haven't updated the plot.

Billy_Bob,
I have to admit to a good amount of computer ignorance. Because I don't know how to retrieve graphs and display them on my reply. But if I bothered to find out, I could bring up graphs that challenge yours.

 

[cultsmasher]

View attachment 32169

CO2 always lags temperature. Before each and every major cool down there is a spike in both temperature and CO2 followed by rapid cooling. we have seen both in the last 20 years. Given the duration of the Holocene period we are over due for our cool down into the next glacial cycle. I wonder if this ever crosses the minds of those in power?

It will be clearly evident in about 7-10 years which we are dealing with. Cyclical 60 year trend or 90,000 year glacial cycle... a 2 deg C drop or a 5 deg C drop...

Billy_Bob,
Rather than debate what you say about temperatures, look at it this way. We would be better off with an ice age than a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

[Mustang]

There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.

But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, they've still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they highhandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing. Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.

Your Delusions of grandeur precede you.. I guess real scientists are to stupid to understand... Only a fool thinks that the science is in any way settled.. Tell me how you stopped natural variation? Inquiring minds would like to know...

There's no delusions of grandeur on my part. I didn't discover the problem or lead the charge on the scientific investigation. Nor did I develop climate models or mathematic formulas to evaluate the evidence. But I have read quite a bit on the subject, and I know enough to be suspicious of the motives of the main players who are denying climate change because I understand the human tendency to deny problems if and when corporations understand that their financial interests will be negatively affected. It's an old story, and the truth of the matter is that burning fossil fuels is a world wide multi-trillion dollar business. Hell, the whole tobacco fight was fought tooth and nail, and that business is peanuts compared to the oil and coal industry and all the other ancillary industries involved in exploration, refining, distribution etc.

As for me, I understand that conservatives want to keep the so-called debate alive because they think as long as people are arguing about it, conservatives are winning. At any rate, everyone already knows that conservatives make more noise than anyone when it comes to any controversy. If there was a room with 200 people in it, and only 10 of them were conservative, they would be making more of a ruckus than everyone else put together. But I personally refuse to be drawn into a continuous back and forth "debate" with conservatives on this issue because they (you) will NEVER accept evidence of anthropomorphic climate change regardless of how compelling it is. That means that the only people who really must be convinced are the fence sitters who haven't taken an ideological position against climate change because, unlike conservatives, they don't interpret the controversy as some kind of creeping socialism which is what is at the heart of conservative animosity.

In my opinion what will likely happen is this: Scientists will make a scientific argument, and conservatives will end up making an ideological argument. And in the end, cooler, more reasoned heads will prevail. Like I said, you guys have already lost the 'debate.' You just don't know it.

 

[cultsmasher]

There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.

But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, they've still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they highhandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing. Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.

Your Delusions of grandeur precede you.. I guess real scientists are to stupid to understand... Only a fool thinks that the science is in any way settled.. Tell me how you stopped natural variation? Inquiring minds would like to know...

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob,
Rather than debate what you say about temperatures, look at it this way. We would be better off with an ice age than a runaway greenhouse effect.

There is no such thing as a runaway green house effect. Paleo records show that the earth has had levels upward of 7,000ppm and the earth has never had that problem. The fact is, the earths physical make up will not allow it.

As this demonstrates the earths 'bumpers' so to speak will not allow a runaway greenhouse effect. What you do have to worry about is a glacial period. Our current Holocene period is now 11,600 years which is longer than the previous two which lasted jut 9,000 or so years.

This graph resolution is 100,000 year plots. so the normal cyclical phases can not be seen. this is a general look at long term climactic events.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now this plot is only a 1,000 year plot and much of the cycles can be seen.

This is where things get dicey. I disagree with the spike of CO2 as it is taken from Manaloa readings and the majority of the graph is from Antarctic ice cores which are generally 120ppm lower. They tacked the Manaloa readings on the end of this graph much like Mann did his proxy reconstructs. Bad sciences is bad science..