Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[otto105]

If you don’t vote democrat the sky is falling lol haha

Way to be less than useless.

 

[Meister]

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's where we separate.. Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

Yeah, yeah, the closest star has no impact whatsoever. No sir, it's all man made.

 

[otto105]

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's where we separate.. Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

Yes as a matter of fact numerous people have claimed man will end. All by lying about what is happening.

Using unnamed people to prove your point???

The horror.

 

[otto105]

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's where we separate.. Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

Yeah, yeah, the closest star has no impact whatsoever. No sir, it's all man made.

Okay, what scientific organization agrees with your opinion?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

AOC ring a bell? How about Gore?

 

[Meister]

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's where we separate.. Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

Yeah, yeah, the closest star has no impact whatsoever. No sir, it's all man made.

Okay, what scientific organization agrees with your opinion?

Really?
I can't believe that a person with an IQ larger than his shoe size would even argue my point.
But....there it is.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end.

Can't discuss with someone who ignores the obvious..







Daniel Turner on Twitter





When you're done with those and you can be HONEST about it --- let's chat....

 

[Flash]

Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "Father of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”

There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....

leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

^
This.

More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options. Nuclear power is not the only solution.

Nuclear power is not the only solution.

No, but it's the only large scale, 24 hour power source if you want to reduce CO2.

You have to remember that to these idiot Moon Bats almost ten billion people can get all their energy needs from solar and wind. they have been told that and they believe it. You can't reason with stupidity like that.

The sun rains down enough energy during the noontime hour to power the planet for a year.

But hey, fuck that. Lets instead build all these plants where an accident or earthquake could contaminate the area for decades & kill thousands.

You are confused Moon Bat but I have a science experiment for you that will show you how stupid you are to post silly shit like that..

On a sunny day go stick you hand out in the sun. See if that is enough energy to run your AC, Heating, Refrigerator, hot water heater and all the other electrical devices you have in your home.

I'll tell you what you are going to find. It ain't enough. The sun's heat is not concentrated enough over the surface of the earth to provide a strong energy source for electrical generation.

It doesn't work. That is why all the stupid solar projects has to have government subsidies to make them competitive with fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro.

A heavily government subsidized solar array on your roof may supply some of the electricity you use but not really close to enough in a year's time. That is only if the sun is shinning and you live in an area with many sunshine days days. Up north forget it.

Solar is fine for providing a little heat to my screened in pool here in Florida during the summer. It is even OK for powering calculators but for a real source of energy, not even close.

It is nothing more than an Environmental Wackos wet dream. Take away the government subsidies and every solar project in the world would go belly up and every company producing solar cells would close their doors.

If somebody has solar they are a welfare queen because the filthy government is making somebody else pay their energy bill. Disgusting, isn't it?

 

[otto105]

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end.

Can't discuss with someone who ignores the obvious..







Daniel Turner on Twitter





When you're done with those and you can be HONEST about it --- let's chat....

I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.

The second to last one is one guy making the claim of mass extinction, but he's not a consensus.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's where we separate.. Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

Yeah, yeah, the closest star has no impact whatsoever. No sir, it's all man made.

Okay, what scientific organization agrees with your opinion?

Really?
I can't believe that a person with an IQ larger than his shoe size would even argue my point.
But....there it is.

Actually the inside skinny on this is -- UN IPCC was chartered ONLY to look into MANMADE causes of CC... It states that in it's original mission statement.. And all the "selected" science to come out of that hired stable of scientists took GREAT efforts to even REDEFINE basic science like "total solar irradiation" to mean something else...

There's this juvenile horseshit belief that temperature changes at the surface have to be forced by immediately preceding events.. Like if CO2 goes up by a tick -- tomorrow the Global temp will rise... That's simply bunk.. The EARTH responds to new thermal equilibriums quite slowly... Over decades, maybe out to century..

So the Total Solar Irradiation PEAKED about 1965 after RISING for nearly 200 years since the Little Ice Age.. And it SAT THERE for another couple decades until it started to drop into what many thing might be ANOTHER coming Little Ice Age...

So the IPCC waved there hands and said -- since there has been no appreciable solar change since the mid 60s --- there can't be an effect from the sun.. BUT BUT BUT ---

Right there in the REST of their report is the thermodynamic science for the LAG IN RESPONSE of surface temps to forcings. And as far as any thermo system goes, ONE "forcing" like retained heat from CO2 is just as good as another (like a significant up-step in TSolarIrrr) to produced delayed heating..

And this is confirmed in ALL the GW/CC studies of the short time and long term response times of the climate...

The IPCC just SKIRTED the issue, lied a bit, and moved on because ----

As Mueller said 100 times in the hearings on Wednesday, when asked about stuff he didn't want to have to address -----

It's not in my PURVIEW......

 

[Wyatt earp]

I will ask you then, since the OP can't provide it. Post us a link to ACTUAL scientific experiments that tell you how much CO2 cause x amount of warming.

...and how much is contributed by Humans.

They can't do it.

Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.

I have a news flash: You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man. These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb. This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet? Dumbass.

Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming..

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death...

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg..

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC...

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC.. That's not likely IMO....

...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true. Because AGW is a nothing burger.

Ad that my friend is a stupid assfuck who will condemn yout children & grandchildren to a more difficult life due to their ignorance.

So you fucking think it would be a better life with out cars and concrete?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What do they agree on?




Please be specific, because I am dying to know..



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I believe the scientist as man can affect his environment. Nonrenewable energy will eventually be gone and Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit. There is a consensus with scientist about global warming. Just because people do not understand it does not mean that its not real. Just because man who has been at it for a short time may not always get it right , does not mean that the original premise was incorrect.

Nature has its mechanism for warming and cooling. The question is as the number of people increase on the planet and they use up resources. How can people not affect it.

Coal is hard rock but its man who burns it and changes it structure releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yes it is present in the atmosphere at a level set by nature but Man has changed this equation and balance.

Scientist monitors it and tells us the probable outcome Is science right well if they have enough data and can make predictions on this data
Science is trial and error.

Still the weatherman in his early days was ridiculed for his inaccurate predictions but he has gotten better at it over time.

Why do they agree on?


.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nobody is claiming that the planet will end.

Can't discuss with someone who ignores the obvious..







Daniel Turner on Twitter





When you're done with those and you can be HONEST about it --- let's chat....

I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.

The second to last one is one guy making the claim of mass extinction, but he's not a consensus.

It's ALL bunk and speculation, NOT science. BuT -- responsible leaders around the world are echoing the NOT SETTLED 1.5DegC "tipping point" that will kill the planet if not fixed in 12 years... There is SO MUCH wrong with this radical "theory"... That's not MY problem... It's yours...

Go back to that video and LEARN what the "tipping (or trigger) point theory of planetary destruction is all about.. Go to about 2 minutes in...

Then realize how much news cycle coverage the Green Raw Deal got because of mental midgets ECHOING this largely unsupported claim... And how it's used around the world to justify $TRILLs in "reparations" for 3rd world countries in the UN..... And in the US it's now being used to justify Fed Govt take-over of more than 1/2 of the economy....

"No one is claiming this" --- you just can't be honest.. MAYBE because you don't follow this issue closely... OR MAYBE because you think this is a POLITICAL problem and not a "science" issue....

 

[flacaltenn]

Just to back up my statement that UN IPCC had a BIASED mission statement. That they IGNORED the stuff outside of their "Mueller-esque" purview... Here's what they assembled to do....

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

No scientific investigation of something like this would be limited like that.. ONLY if you HAD a desired and pre-conceived outcome you were trying to justify.... THAT's why (like the Mueller probe) so much important FACTUAL and CONTEXTUAL evidence got ignored....

 

[francoHFW]

Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.

Makes you wonder why stupid fucking liberals living on the coasts are not moving in masses away from coastal regions. They aren't.

Why?

Hmmmm "BWK" you "A F R I C AN" American. Go ahead and explain why that is you idiot.

Tell us all of the sacrifices you are making and have made for the sake of THE global WARMING.

Let me answer. The conservatives are racists. There, that is and always will be their answer to any question that shows how fucking stupid they all are.

I thought Obama and Hillary were dictators killing clean coal forcing people to buy electric cars and solar cells etc etc etc.

 

[francoHFW]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What do they agree on?




Please be specific, because I am dying to know..



.

Every scientist and political party in the world agree the global warming is real except for the brainwashed GOP ignoramuses....

 

[Wyatt earp]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What do they agree on?




Please be specific, because I am dying to know..



.

Every scientist and political party in the world agree the global warming is real except for the brainwashed GOP ignoramuses....

So they agree the earth climate has changed for 4.5 billion years..


Thanks for the update a 7 year old could of told us that.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.

It's not EXPECTED that the Mean temp of planet would EVER be a constant... Historic evidence confirms that like WEATHER --- climate does have a natural variability... So, it's not that easy to say that our hundred 1degC blip in temp is ENTIRELY due to one factor..

That's what YOU'VE missed. Assuming that the climate does not naturally change over decades or centuries. It does. That doesn't show in a lot of the "ancient climate" studies using proxies, because those tree rings, ice cores and mud bug shells are NOT thermometers and the end result of data processing all of those things together destroys the absolute ACCURACY and TIME resolution of the results... This is an whole 'nother argument you have not heard....

Some proxies are better than others and CLEARLY show a LOT of "natural variability" in past climates since the last major Ice Age.... For instance, Greenland has "better ice" for ice cores since it's not a desert like the Antarctic continent.. Therefore there is higher TIME resolution in that proxy....

NOTE: In this high resolution proxy - there are NUMEROUS and QUITE RAPID swings in temperature....

 

[francoHFW]

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century."

Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem..

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could....

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately?


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...

GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?

What do they agree on?




Please be specific, because I am dying to know..



.

Every scientist and political party in the world agree the global warming is real except for the brainwashed GOP ignoramuses....

So they agree the earth climate has changed for 4.5 billion years..


Thanks for the update a 7 year old could of told us that.


.

Man-made global warming is agreed on everywhere but brainwashed GOP dupe world. Ditto your phony scandals all of them.