NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[Saigon]

Really, I guess you missed the OP, or do you not consider NASA a valid scientific body?

Nasais totally up to speed on climate change -

Nasa position on climate change:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The chart on the left shows the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores. The chart on the right shows CO2 levels in recent years, corrected for average seasonal cycles.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Climate Change: Consensus

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

I do agree with some of your points here, and certainly there are large areas of uncertainty remaining in this debate - although it has to be said that man's ability to impact the atmopshere is not one of them.

and the scientific community also disagrees

The thing you have to realise is that this really is no longer true. Of the major most significant international scientifi organisations - not one rejects the idea that human acitivity influences the climate. Fifty of fifty have stated that human acitivity is a factor.

Now granted there are still some scientists out there with opposing views and good on them for sticking to their guns, but this is not a 50/50 situation - it is a 99/1 situation.

That doesn't make the 1% wrong, but it does mean you are a very small minority.

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

 

[Saigon]

So how do you determine who to believe? I have read so many differing opinions on global warming that I would agree it maybe happening but I'm not sure of all the disasters or what is causing it. Cooling and warming seem to be natural events on the earth. I really have no idea what to believe. Everyone seems to get their pockets lined on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that distorts much of the data.

That's a very good question, but as Editc posted earlier - for those of us who are not cience experts, probably we go with what experts tell us.

All of the major scientific organisations - bar none - tell us that human activitiy is a key factor. That's good enough for me.

 

[Saigon]

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

Dude, that is just nonsense. It's a child's response.

There is no money to be made in science by lying or faking research.

 

[Dubya]

man can certainly have a local impact on the environment

but to say that snow and the cold is caused by man made global warming

is absurd

in fact for the left all of our troubles originate from man made global warming

btw who is to say

that a little warmer planet is a bad thing

Do you see this Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover in June?

At the end of June the sun is the most direct in the Northern Hemisphere. 6 million square kilometers in like three Greenland ice sheets or three of the remaining arctic sea ice. That trend doesn't have to increase, because just losing that amount of snow cover in June is enough to cause massive melting in the Northern Hemisphere. The arctic sea ice is already toast and Greenland is going to be next.

 

[Redfish]

Really, I guess you missed the OP, or do you not consider NASA a valid scientific body?

Nasais totally up to speed on climate change -

Nasa position on climate change:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The chart on the left shows the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores. The chart on the right shows CO2 levels in recent years, corrected for average seasonal cycles.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Climate Change: Consensus

Well, I disagree. But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.

I am sceptical of anything that comes out of the government that would result in higher taxes and loss of freedom.

If you choose to believe in AGW, thats just fine. I will continue to apply logic and common sense to this and other topics.

 

[bripat9643]

So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation? No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!

That sentence is a perfect caricature of the idiocy of liberal understanding of how the climate works.

You're a caricature of a knowledgeable person!

I suppose that's your conception of wit.

 

[Redfish]

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

Dude, that is just nonsense. It's a child's response.

There is no money to be made in science by lying or faking research.

Not so. govt grants are very lucrative, but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions. sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.

 

[Dubya]

March 7, 2013

Global Temperatures
Highest In 4,000 Years​

"Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.

Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said.

Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike. If the rise continues apace, early Holocene temperatures are likely to be surpassed within this century, Dr. Marcott said.

Dr. Mann pointed out that the early Holocene temperature increase was almost certainly slow, giving plants and creatures time to adjust. But he said the modern spike would probably threaten the survival of many species, in addition to putting severe stresses on human civilization.

“We and other living things can adapt to slower changes,” Dr. Mann said. “It’s the unprecedented speed with which we’re changing the climate that is so worrisome.”

So how do you determine who to believe? I have read so many differing opinions on global warming that I would agree it maybe happening but I'm not sure of all the disasters or what is causing it. Cooling and warming seem to be natural events on the earth. I really have no idea what to believe. Everyone seems to get their pockets lined on both sides of the issue and I'm sure that distorts much of the data.

Have you read how the reinsurers, the people who insure insurance companies have been charging for global warming since the '70s? Have you seen their evidence of more natural disasters that are caused by climate change?

If the governments of the world put their minds to it and stopped playing around, they could make major changes in energy within a decade. They need to get away from the idea of carbon taxes and make cheap clean energy.

If we fool around in this country, we are going to find our exports taxed on foreign markets, so what makes you think their will be a free ride through these changes? The idiots are going to make it cost more.

 

[Saigon]

Well, I disagree. But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.

I am sceptical of anything that comes out of the government that would result in higher taxes and loss of freedom.

If you choose to believe in AGW, thats just fine. I will continue to apply logic and common sense to this and other topics.

Well, I share some of your scpeticism about government, and of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

But claiming logic is on your side when all of the science is on the other side....I don't get that.

 

[Saigon]

Not so. govt grants are very lucrative, but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions. sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.

Actually, in most cases it is physically impossible to "produce desired conclusions", because university funding is set up in such a way that no government agency can use funding to manipulate it.

In most cases like this there are quite simple explanations for these questions - it's just a case of getting good information on how things work.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I disagree. But I am just a human being who has been around many years, been through a academic education as well as an education of hard knocks and international business.

I am sceptical of anything that comes out of the government that would result in higher taxes and loss of freedom.

If you choose to believe in AGW, thats just fine. I will continue to apply logic and common sense to this and other topics.

Well, I share some of your scpeticism about government, and of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

But claiming logic is on your side when all of the science is on the other side....I don't get that.

All of science isn't on the other side. Claims like that only show your ignorance of science.

 

[jknowgood]

Your car changes it's direction, fool, does that mean you don't drive it?

Your car changes direction because you make it change direction. The earth's climate will or will not change, and there is nothing you can do aboit it.

The Earth's climate has already been changed by man. If you idiots think you are going to avoid the cost of changing our energy consumption, you are mistaken. In the next 50 years, you're going to pay many times that cost. Get used to it, fool, because it isn't something you can put off on future generations!

The first prediction about global cooling in the 70's if was true, we would all be dead now. So whats your point?

 

[Dubya]

Your car changes direction because you make it change direction. The earth's climate will or will not change, and there is nothing you can do aboit it.

The Earth's climate has already been changed by man. If you idiots think you are going to avoid the cost of changing our energy consumption, you are mistaken. In the next 50 years, you're going to pay many times that cost. Get used to it, fool, because it isn't something you can put off on future generations!

The first prediction about global cooling in the 70's if was true, we would all be dead now. So whats your point?

Let's see you prove your bullshit that you make up! The only thing you prove is some fool can type the words, but you can't back up your words. I was taking college courses in climatology and working in a research center before global warming concerns, so I know you are full of shit.

 

[jknowgood]

The Earth's climate has already been changed by man. If you idiots think you are going to avoid the cost of changing our energy consumption, you are mistaken. In the next 50 years, you're going to pay many times that cost. Get used to it, fool, because it isn't something you can put off on future generations!

The first prediction about global cooling in the 70's if was true, we would all be dead now. So whats your point?

Let's see you prove your bullshit that you make up! The only thing you prove is some fool can type the words, but you can't back up your words. I was taking college courses in climatology and working in a research center before global warming concerns, so I know you are full of shit.

On the first earthday in the 70's it was predicted by the year 2000 that all of the worlds resources would be depleted. Last I checked, he was wrong. I can tell you one thing that is a fact. You and obama are proof that having a college education doesn't mean you are smart. That money was a waste.

 

[konradv]

Redfish -

I do agree with some of your points here, and certainly there are large areas of uncertainty remaining in this debate - although it has to be said that man's ability to impact the atmopshere is not one of them.

and the scientific community also disagrees

The thing you have to realise is that this really is no longer true. Of the major most significant international scientifi organisations - not one rejects the idea that human acitivity influences the climate. Fifty of fifty have stated that human acitivity is a factor.

Now granted there are still some scientists out there with opposing views and good on them for sticking to their guns, but this is not a 50/50 situation - it is a 99/1 situation.

That doesn't make the 1% wrong, but it does mean you are a very small minority.

and how many of those AGW believers have a political agenda? Do you consider Al Gore an unbiased source of information?

you ignore the real motives of many of the AGW promoters, its called MONEY. There is money in AGW.

There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it. Who do you think is funding the deniers?

 

[konradv]

actually the scientific community is divided about 50/50 on whether man has anything to do with climate change, but there is 99% agreement on the fact that the climate of the earth has always been changing and always will be long after man's short history on the planet is over.

Your car changes it's direction, fool, does that mean you don't drive it?

Uhhhhhh, Ok dub. it must be time for your meds, call the orderly, and just relax until he gets there, you might hurt yourself.

The graph was posted earlier. You just chose to ignore it. So, i guess we can add willfully blind to terminally stupid!

 

[bripat9643]

Not so. govt grants are very lucrative, but you only continue to get them if you produce the desired conclusions. sorry, but your blind faith in govt studies is naive and dangerous.

Actually, in most cases it is physically impossible to "produce desired conclusions", because university funding is set up in such a way that no government agency can use funding to manipulate it.

You are either incredibly naive or playing stupid. In the first place, universities don't determine who gets the funding, the government agencies handing out the grants make that determination. The simple act of choosing who gets funded and who doesn't is sufficient to produce a corrupt result. If you're a climate researcher and you do produce a paper that says global warming is no cause for alarm, do you suppose a government agency charge with dispensing grants for research on global warming is going to send more money in your direction?

In most cases like this there are quite simple explanations for these questions - it's just a case of getting good information on how things work.

The simplest explanation is that researchers will produce the results the government bureaucrats want when millions of dollars are on the line.

 

[bripat9643]

There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it. Who do you think is funding the deniers?

Wrong.

 

[konradv]

There's a lot more money in trying to debunk it. Who do you think is funding the deniers?

Wrong.

Who funds the denier think tanks? I guess you think it's all done on charity!