Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming serious

[itfitzme]

Shine light through gas, measure amount coming out. Change thickness, measure again. *Empirical.

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: *The*basis for the AGW scam.

A simple experiment with three variables -- tops -- is supposed to accurately model the oceans and atmosphere of an entire planet -- oh, and don't forget the star in the immediate neighborhood -- with literally millions of variables.

By the way -- there are many ways to measure gas. *Thickness isn't one of them.

You really have no basis to rationally claim superior scientific knowledge. *So maybe you ought to stop.

Not very bright, are you Dave. *That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

See, this is how it works. If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

the history is increasing temp and CO2. *See, 1+1=2. *Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming. 1+1=2.

So the question we gotta ask is, have you learned to not bang your head yet? *Maybe that's why it is too complicated for you, to many concussions. *You should wear your helmet when you go outside.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming seriously. Maybe we should too?

Maybe we should go completely to renewables as fast as we can. They're acting like they know something we do NOT. Like we're completely fucked if we do not. Our defense department says it is the worse thing we face...Think about that for a second...

Obama is in Africa saying that it is worse then things that kill million per year!

I suggest going to
Nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
thermal
wave

This is either the greatest fraud ever played on this country or it is true. Think about that for a second. EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know something.

If the left would allow us to add 10-15% more nuclear it wouldn't be that hard. Think about it. They may really think that our planet is heading to 8-10c and don't want us to be afraid. Aka riot and burn our cities down.

Chicken Little
Name the Scientists that believe in climate change and those who do not.

Every single Scientific Society in the world states that AGW is real, as does every National Academy of Science, as does every major university.

Scientific Societies are democracies, and you get to vote on the leadership. Were there a great many dissenting scientists about global warming, the unequivocal policy statements by the Scientific Societies would not be there.

 

[itfitzme]

global warming aka (climate change) is like a cult and people like Al Gore and Obama who have no training in climate, weather.. they just spew that so many scientist say this and call other people stupid names like flat earthers and deniers are the Cult leaders...Like Jim Jones

what's scary is people actually follow people like this no questions asked...

Really? So, what do the real scientists have to say, Staph? Well, here is what the American Geophysical Union has to state, and it has more climate scientists in it's membership than any other scientific organization in the world;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

That is too many words for the to read. It needs to be more like "See Spot run." or "One fish two fish red fish blue fish." Too much to read causes them anxiety.

 

[daveman]

Shine light through gas, measure amount coming out. Change thickness, measure again. *Empirical.

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: *The*basis for the AGW scam.

A simple experiment with three variables -- tops -- is supposed to accurately model the oceans and atmosphere of an entire planet -- oh, and don't forget the star in the immediate neighborhood -- with literally millions of variables.

By the way -- there are many ways to measure gas. *Thickness isn't one of them.

You really have no basis to rationally claim superior scientific knowledge. *So maybe you ought to stop.

Not very bright, are you Dave. *That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

See, this is how it works. If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

the history is increasing temp and CO2. *See, 1+1=2. *Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming. 1+1=2.

So the question we gotta ask is, have you learned to not bang your head yet? *Maybe that's why it is too complicated for you, to many concussions. *You should wear your helmet when you go outside.

Oooh, a blog. I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. Because you're doing that wrong, too.

 

[Old Rocks]

Words from scientists cause them anxiety. They much prefer to get their information from obese junkies on the radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: *The*basis for the AGW scam.

A simple experiment with three variables -- tops -- is supposed to accurately model the oceans and atmosphere of an entire planet -- oh, and don't forget the star in the immediate neighborhood -- with literally millions of variables.

By the way -- there are many ways to measure gas. *Thickness isn't one of them.

You really have no basis to rationally claim superior scientific knowledge. *So maybe you ought to stop.

Not very bright, are you Dave. *That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

See, this is how it works. If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

the history is increasing temp and CO2. *See, 1+1=2. *Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming. 1+1=2.

So the question we gotta ask is, have you learned to not bang your head yet? *Maybe that's why it is too complicated for you, to many concussions. *You should wear your helmet when you go outside.

Oooh, a blog. I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. Because you're doing that wrong, too.

OK, this is from a 301 Biology class at Oregon State, complete with links backing the information.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Oregon State University -- Biology 301 -- Human Impacts on Ecosystems
Copyright 1999, Patricia S. Muir
CAUTION -- MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE UPDATED FOR 2013, BUT I COULDN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM; IF INFORMATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT GIVEN IN LECTURE, GO WITH THE LECTURE INFORMATION!

 

[daveman]

Not very bright, are you Dave. *That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

See, this is how it works. If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

the history is increasing temp and CO2. *See, 1+1=2. *Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming. 1+1=2.

So the question we gotta ask is, have you learned to not bang your head yet? *Maybe that's why it is too complicated for you, to many concussions. *You should wear your helmet when you go outside.

Oooh, a blog. I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. Because you're doing that wrong, too.

OK, this is from a 301 Biology class at Oregon State, complete with links backing the information.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Oregon State University -- Biology 301 -- Human Impacts on Ecosystems
Copyright 1999, Patricia S. Muir
CAUTION -- MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE UPDATED FOR 2013, BUT I COULDN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM; IF INFORMATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT GIVEN IN LECTURE, GO WITH THE LECTURE INFORMATION!

So biologists are experts in climatology now?

Who are you going to cite next...phrenologists?

 

[itfitzme]

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: *The*basis for the AGW scam.

A simple experiment with three variables -- tops -- is supposed to accurately model the oceans and atmosphere of an entire planet -- oh, and don't forget the star in the immediate neighborhood -- with literally millions of variables.

By the way -- there are many ways to measure gas. *Thickness isn't one of them.

You really have no basis to rationally claim superior scientific knowledge. *So maybe you ought to stop.

Not very bright, are you Dave. *That is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, also empirical.

See, this is how it works. If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Oh, and looky here,

the history is increasing temp and CO2. *See, 1+1=2. *Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming. 1+1=2.

So the question we gotta ask is, have you learned to not bang your head yet? *Maybe that's why it is too complicated for you, to many concussions. *You should wear your helmet when you go outside.

Oooh, a blog. *I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. *Because you're doing that wrong, too. *

It's a graph, Dave. They all look the same, no matter where they come from. *Seeing as you know so much about AWG, you'd recognize it instantly.

They're just asterisks. *It's an artifact of my mobile text editor. *Sorry they are distracting you. *That's an artifact of your hypervigilance caused by PTSD. You gotta learn to filter out irrelevant information.

 

[itfitzme]

Oooh, a blog. *I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. *Because you're doing that wrong, too. *

OK, this is from a 301 Biology class at Oregon State, complete with links backing the information.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE*
Oregon State University -- Biology 301 -- Human Impacts on Ecosystems*
Copyright 1999, Patricia S. Muir*
CAUTION -- MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE UPDATED FOR 2013, BUT I COULDN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM; IF INFORMATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT GIVEN IN LECTURE, GO WITH THE LECTURE INFORMATION!

So biologists are experts in climatology now?

Who are you going to cite next...phrenologists?

The course is "HUMAN IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS"

Biologists are experts at biological things, like plants and animals. Plants and animals live outside. *Outside is where climate and weather happen. *So biologists would be experts at how climate effects plants and animals.

I know, that is a long chain of associations.

Biology->animals->outside->weather->climate

So, for them to be an expert in outside things, they have to understand how outside works. Biologists learn about outside from climatologists. *Climatologists learn about plants from biologists. *It's like they are special friends.

You remember outside? It's where you are suppose to wear your helmet, when you go outside and visit your special friend.

 

[daveman]

It's a graph, Dave. They all look the same, no matter where they come from. *Seeing as you know so much about AWG, you'd recognize it instantly.

Really? Whenever anyone posts a graph that's heretical against your cult, you guys go ape shit.

They're just asterisks. *It's an artifact of my mobile text editor. *Sorry they are distracting you.

Your mobile text editor sucks.

*That's an artifact of your hypervigilance caused by PTSD.

Why would you think I have PTSD? Because I've been in the military?

Do you think ALL military members have served in combat? Are you that ignorant?

Wait, you can't be ignorant -- you're an internet psychologist.

You gotta learn to filter out irrelevant information.

So I should put you on Ignore, right?

 

[daveman]

OK, this is from a 301 Biology class at Oregon State, complete with links backing the information.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE*
Oregon State University -- Biology 301 -- Human Impacts on Ecosystems*
Copyright 1999, Patricia S. Muir*
CAUTION -- MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE UPDATED FOR 2013, BUT I COULDN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM; IF INFORMATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT GIVEN IN LECTURE, GO WITH THE LECTURE INFORMATION!

So biologists are experts in climatology now?

Who are you going to cite next...phrenologists?

The course is "HUMAN IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS"

Biologists are experts at biological things, like plants and animals. Plants and animals live outside. *Outside is where climate and weather happen. *So biologists would be experts at how climate effects plants and animals.

I know, that is a long chain of associations.

Biology->animals->outside->weather->climate

So, for them to be an expert in outside things, they have to understand how outside works. Biologists learn about outside from climatologists. *Climatologists learn about plants from biologists. *It's like they are special friends.

You remember outside? It's where you are suppose to wear your helmet, when you go outside and visit your special friend.

You really should stop trying to be condescending. You simply don't have the horsepower to pull it off, kid.

 

[skookerasbil]

Whether its real or not is a moot point. It really is irrelevant in the bigger picture!!

This article pretty much nails it.....only people who embrace shooting themselves in the face keep ringing the bell on the global warming stuff.......its really is a simple exercise of connecting the dots ( or not )

Obama?s Global-Warming Folly | National Review Online



Most of the population have no clue about the differences between intelligence and thought processing. There are exceedingly smart people who have significant thought processing difficulties. Such is the case for people who are hyper-advocates of "doing something now" to combat global warming........these same people completely either ignore or seriously undervalue the "costs" of "doing something". It is as if these costs are a pronounced afterthought. But it is exactly why they are losing in epic fashion........because their solutions are spectacularly impossible to implement and will never be implemented.

 

[itfitzme]

Whether its real or not is a moot point. It really is irrelevant in the bigger picture!!

This article pretty much nails it.....only people who embrace shooting themselves in the face keep ringing the bell on the global warming stuff.......its really is a simple exercise of connecting the dots ( or not )

Obama?s Global-Warming Folly | National Review Online



Most of the population have no clue about the differences between intelligence and thought processing. There are exceedingly smart people who have significant thought processing difficulties. Such is the case for people who are hyper-advocates of "doing something now" to combat global warming........these same people completely either ignore or seriously undervalue the "costs" of "doing something". It is as if these costs are a pronounced afterthought. But it is exactly why they are losing in epic fashion........because their solutions are spectacularly impossible to implement and will never be implemented.

The real cost is simply people will have to do some work. That would be an increase to GDP.

The real cost to ignoring it is loss of food production.

We can assign probabilities to these and do a proper cost benefit analysis.

The issue is economic cost, not accounting cost.

 

[itfitzme]

CARVE UPDATE-07/06/2013 8:16 PM

Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment

"CARVE ... use the Arctic-proven C-23 Sherpa aircraft to fly an innovative airborne remote sensing payload. ...*to ...*measure ...*soil moisture, freeze/thaw state, surface temperature*...*and total atmospheric columns of carbon dioxide, methane, and carbon monoxide."

"Ask Miller now if any trends are apparent, and he demurs, wanting to wait for more data. But he does say the airborne surveillance periodically encounter large “plumes of methane,” as much as 150 kilometers (90 miles) across."

>(LINK:Thawing Permafrost Could Speed Global Warming)

>(LINK:Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment)

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fusion, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, thermal....

The only thing we lower is coal and oil. How hard is it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Fusion, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, thermal....

The only thing we lower is coal and oil. How hard is it?

When you're willing to waste bushels of money on wind and wave (and to some extent solar) --- it can be VERY hard to focus on a workable plan...

Don't know if you mean Geothermal -- but if you did --- as soon as folks find out that's the grandaddy of fracking operations --- you're sunk...

 

[Cuyo]

Oooh, a blog. I thought you guys said blogs were inadmissible.

Just when they say stuff you don't like, huh?

And someday, you need to learn how asterisks work. Because you're doing that wrong, too.

OK, this is from a 301 Biology class at Oregon State, complete with links backing the information.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/globclim.htm

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Oregon State University -- Biology 301 -- Human Impacts on Ecosystems
Copyright 1999, Patricia S. Muir
CAUTION -- MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE UPDATED FOR 2013, BUT I COULDN'T GET TO ALL OF THEM; IF INFORMATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT GIVEN IN LECTURE, GO WITH THE LECTURE INFORMATION!

So biologists are experts in climatology now?

Who are you going to cite next...phrenologists?

Nah. For scientists overall and educated people in general, it's only a vast majority.

For actual climatology experts, it's virtually unanimous.

Hell of a scam, eh? Buying off every research venue, university, and body of science on the planet to play along, all so they could hatch their plan to wreck the economy! Muahahaha!

Do you people have ANY idea how dumb you sound?

 

[itfitzme]

It's a graph, Dave. They all look the same, no matter where they come from. *Seeing as you know so much about AWG, you'd recognize it instantly.

Really? *Whenever anyone posts a graph that's heretical against your cult, you guys go ape shit.

They're just asterisks. *It's an artifact of my mobile text editor. *Sorry they are distracting you.

Your mobile text editor sucks. *

*That's an artifact of your hypervigilance caused by PTSD.

Why would you think I have PTSD? *Because I've been in the military? *

Do you think ALL military members have served in combat? *Are you that ignorant?

Wait, you can't be ignorant -- you're an internet psychologist. *

You gotta learn to filter out irrelevant information.

So I should put you on Ignore, right?

I didn't know you had been in the military. *I said because I recognized characteristics suggestive of it. It isn't a condition unique to military combat, though it is particularly severe for military personnel. *It's not an all or nothing thing either. It is a continuous scale. *People living in NY, at the time of 9/11, exhibited PTSD, even people that were only aware of it directly. *I met someone, a year after 9/11 and he was still clearly traumatized. *It's a bitch of a thing.*Sorry to see it got you too.

 

[itfitzme]

Fusion, nuclear, wind, solar, wave, thermal....

The only thing we lower is coal and oil. How hard is it?

Come on, Matt, they haven't demonstrated sustained fission with net plus power out yet, have they? *Have they demonstrated sustained at all? *

Besides, did we learn nothing from Dr. Octopus?

Renewables, like hydro, wind, and geothermo are a bit geographic specific. *Solar would be great, a bit less geo specific. We have some large tracts of land available and the dust problem might be diminished by putting something over the ground there. It could even be a nice eco boost, creating habitats under the panels.*

Nuclear, on the other hand, was trending nicely before the recession. *The Navy has nuclear subs! *Proven technology. *It's compact. *They have no meltdown systems. *The main reactor module can be fully sealed and buried under ground.

Power 10-20k homes for $25 mil for 5-30-60 years on a 1.5 sq m footprint. *

"Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world," said John Deal, CEO of Hyperion. "[The nuclear plants] will cost approximately $25 million each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home."

Urenco has called for European development of very small – 5 to 10 MWe – 'plug and play' inherently-safe reactors based on graphite-moderated HTR concepts. It is seeking government support for a prototype "U-Battery" which would run for 5-10 years before requiring refueling or servicing.*

They are awesome. And we can be the global leader. Built in America, shipped anywhere in the world. Installation is free, when you buy four or more.

 

[itfitzme]

Whether its real or not is a moot point. It really is irrelevant in the bigger picture!!

This article pretty much nails it.....only people who embrace shooting themselves in the face keep ringing the bell on the global warming stuff.......its really is a simple exercise of connecting the dots ( or not )

Obama?s Global-Warming Folly | National Review Online



Most of the population have no clue about the differences between intelligence and thought processing. There are exceedingly smart people who have significant thought processing difficulties. Such is the case for people who are hyper-advocates of "doing something now" to combat global warming........these same people completely either ignore or seriously undervalue the "costs" of "doing something". It is as if these costs are a pronounced afterthought. But it is exactly why they are losing in epic fashion........because their solutions are spectacularly impossible to implement and will never be implemented.

Wow, if only that were true. *The author is a complete moron if he actually believes that there has been no warming for 16 years. *I see he doesn't actually support this statement.

This is the global land-ocean mean temperature.

This is the metorological station data

" The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. "

This is the troposphere UAH satellite data.

Even Dr. Roy Spencer, who has his own ideas of AGW, notes that the 1998 spike as El Nino warming.

The other measures do not support this 16 year, by any stretch of the imagination.

At best, the five year average, which is insufficient to gauge climate change, is within the limits of variability such that we can't say either way.*

Here is a better analysis;

"Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans)."

*"If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".

This 16-year bs is the same thing that has been claimed repeatedly.

"One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change "skeptics" is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. *This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). *Isn't it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades? "



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years

Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science: The Escalator