Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[Crick]

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact? And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.

 

[jc456]

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

What about that is their position, not a proven scientific fact do you not understand?

Did you even bother to see who signed it? Those people are not Joe Blow on the street. They are 14 of the most respected Earth scientists anywhere. And dude, scientists don't publish such position statements on a whim, and they certainly don't do it for political purposes.

Actually, who they are supports my point they don’t view it as “fact” since they wrote a “position paper” on it, you don’t write position papers on proven fact.


And there is a big range between “whim” and "fact", a very big range. Those aren’t the only choices.


That they believe something is happening with the climate is reasonable, you are just taking what is established and isn’t and cause and effect way, way too far

Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact? And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.

Perhaps you should get a book and read up on what Theory means. It means you have an experiment that proves a hypothesis, now for the umpteenth hundred and 30th time show us the experiment!!!

 

[asterism]

Are hybrids actually more energy efficient? They burn less gas but they also take a much larger amount of energy to produce. I recently bought a hybrid and I like it, twice the average MPG as my other cars. But I'm not sure a 7 year lifetime for a big ass battery is better for the planet from a carbon perspective. Those batteries take a whole lot of energy to produce.

And are recyclable.

Does the recycling process save energy or just materials? There is a difference.

It does both. By recycling materials, you not only are saving resources, but saving most of the energy that would be needed to make the same refined product from raw ore. It takes much less energy and raw material to recycle a battery than it does to make a new one from scratch.

Is there any proof of this energy savings? I haven't been able to find any. The DOE certainly doesn't mention energy savings at all.

Alternative Fuels Data Center Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles

Nissan recycles over 97% of their waste, at a profit.

Nissan Recovers 97 of Auto Shredder Residue Environmental Leader Environmental Management Sustainable Development News

Nissan recovered 112,507.2 tons of the 115,741.4 tons of automobile shredder residue (ASR) collected from 533,836 vehicles in Japan in fiscal year 2013 — an amount that represents a recovery ratio of 97.2 percent — according to the automaker.

This means Nissan has achieved the Japan Automobile Recycling law ASR recovery target rate of 70 percent by FY2015 for eight consecutive years.

In its other recycling results achieved between April 2013 to March 2014, Nissan says the recovery ratio for end-of-life (ELV) vehicles (actual value) was 99.5 percent. The company also reduced the amount of ASR-related landfill and incineration disposal to zero and and participated in a trial of recycling ASR, with an advanced method of sorting ASR and process them as resources.

Nissan recovered 1,603,679 airbag-related products from 445,635 vehicles through recovery processing and on-board deployment operations. The airbag recycling ratio was 94.1 percent, exceeding the legal requirement of 85 percent. A total of 138,602.149 kg of fluorocarbons collected from 490,825 vehicles was processed.

The cost of the recycling efforts for these specified materials amounted to 5,400,091,730 yen ($52,677,895). Recycling fees and income generated from the fund for vehicle recycling totaled 6,286,540,805 yen ($61,325,206), contributing to a net surplus of 886,449,075 yen ($8,647,311).

But that's not batteries from hybrids and that's what I asked about.

 

[Crick]

Alternative Fuels Data Center Batteries for Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles

Recycling Batteries
Electric drive vehicles are relatively new to the U.S. auto market, so only a small number of them have approached the end of their useful lives. As a result, few post-consumer batteries from electric drive vehicles are available, thus limiting the extent of battery-recycling infrastructure. As electric drive vehicles become increasingly common, the battery-recycling market will likely expand.

Widespread battery recycling would keep hazardous materials from entering the waste stream, both at the end of a battery's useful life, as well as during its production. Work is now under way to develop battery-recycling processes that minimize the life-cycle impacts of using lithium-ion and other kinds of batteries in vehicles. But not all recycling processes are the same:

• Smelting: Smelting processes recover basic elements or salts. These processes are operational now on a large scale and can accept multiple kinds of batteries, including lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries. Smelting takes place at high temperatures, and organic materials, including the electrolyte and carbon anodes, are burned as fuel or reductant. The valuable metals are recovered and sent to refining so that the product is suitable for any use. The other materials, including lithium, are contained in the slag, which is now used as an additive in concrete.
• Direct recovery: At the other extreme, some recycling processes directly recover battery-grade materials. Components are separated by a variety of physical and chemical processes, and all active materials and metals can be recovered. Direct recovery is a low-temperature process with minimal energy requirement.
• Intermediate processes: The third type of process is between the two extremes. Such processes may accept multiple kinds of batteries, unlike direct recovery, but recover materials further along the production chain than smelting does.

Separation of different kinds of battery materials is often a stumbling block for the recovery of high-value materials. Therefore, battery design that takes disassembly and recycling in mind is important to the success of PEV sustainability. Standardization of batteries, materials, and cell design would also make recycling easier and more cost-effective.

See the report from Sandia National Laboratory: Technical and Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications(PDF). http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/Technical and feasible.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.

More at the link.

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

 

[Old Rocks]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Link?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Link?

GONE WITH THE WIND: 1 In 4 Wind Turbine Companies Went BUST In Last Two Years

FTI Consulting reports that more than 120 wind industry suppliers have collapsed or gotten out of the wind business in the past two years. FTI notes that lagging economies and fears of having their subsidies taken away have wreaked havoc on wind-turbine suppliers.

According to FTI, 88 wind suppliers from Asia, 23 from Europe, and 18 from North America have failed or left the wind market as part of a “prolonged market contraction.” These 129 firms represent about a quarter of the roughly 500 companies making wind turbine components. Components “account for more than 95 percent of a wind turbine’s total cost,” reports CleanTechnica.

“The wind industry has been in the process of transformation since 2011 and the global wind supply chain is not matured yet,” said Feng Zhao, a director and head of the wind energy practice at FTI. “The exit/non-participation of so many suppliers delivers a dangerous signal to governments.”

Ugly... Very ugly..

 

[orogenicman]

All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?

Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Using your model, much of the country wouldn't even have electricity today. You really should look into the history of electricity in this country. The EU has pulled the plug on alternative energy? Clue - this is not make up shit Thursday.

 

[orogenicman]

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Link?

GONE WITH THE WIND: 1 In 4 Wind Turbine Companies Went BUST In Last Two Years

FTI Consulting reports that more than 120 wind industry suppliers have collapsed or gotten out of the wind business in the past two years. FTI notes that lagging economies and fears of having their subsidies taken away have wreaked havoc on wind-turbine suppliers.

According to FTI, 88 wind suppliers from Asia, 23 from Europe, and 18 from North America have failed or left the wind market as part of a “prolonged market contraction.” These 129 firms represent about a quarter of the roughly 500 companies making wind turbine components. Components “account for more than 95 percent of a wind turbine’s total cost,” reports CleanTechnica.

“The wind industry has been in the process of transformation since 2011 and the global wind supply chain is not matured yet,” said Feng Zhao, a director and head of the wind energy practice at FTI. “The exit/non-participation of so many suppliers delivers a dangerous signal to governments.”

Ugly... Very ugly..

Yes, this is the same right wing rag that published an article claiming that the Earth's rotation is the cause of global warming. Very ugly indeed.

 

[bripat9643]

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Using your model, much of the country wouldn't even have electricity today. You really should look into the history of electricity in this country. The EU has pulled the plug on alternative energy? Clue - this is not make up shit Thursday.

You mean about 3% of the country wouldn't have electricity. The rest of us live in the city or in suburbs. Even that 3% would have electricity, but it wouldn't come from the grid. They would probably have propane powered generators or even wind energy!

The question you have to answer is why should families living in the ghetto be taxed so that rich famers can have very expensive power lines strung out to their property?

 

[kaz]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

 

[kaz]

[Name a scientific institution that doesn't recognize the fact of AGW. Name one nation that has released a statement denying AGW. It isn't the scientific community that denies AGW. That tag goes to people bought out by the petrochemical industry and their conservative minions who don't know any better or else are also bought out.

Any institution that claims it's "fact" isn't a credible institution

Well then, Mr. credible, according to your logic, that would necessarily include every major scientific institution on the planet. Care to rephrase your statement?

So, that was a factual comment.

He got caught with his pants down on that one, turns out none of them state AGW is fact, they have a position that it's true.

It's odd a guy who writes on science and claims to be an expert in climate doesn't know what the scientific method is and what a "fact" is in science, he thinks if academics take a position that makes it a "fact." Something they never say

 

[kaz]

Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact? And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.

Besides being snotty, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you know what the scientific method is and how it pertains to "fact" in science? If global climate change were "fact," then why did they write a position paper? That makes no sense. Though since you don't understand it, maybe not making sense and you not understanding it cancels each other out

 

[orogenicman]

We have detailed data on global climate that goes back at least 2 million years

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

 

[orogenicman]

Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact? And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.

Besides being snotty, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you know what the scientific method is and how it pertains to "fact" in science? If global climate change were "fact," then why did they write a position paper? That makes no sense. Though since you don't understand it, maybe not making sense and you not understanding it cancels each other out

They and many others have published position papers on it because they want the public to know that they support the science, and dude, they support it because they know it has scientific merit. You don't see them putting out position papers on denier arguments because they know those arguments DON'T have scientific merit.

 

[kaz]

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What irritates me is that global warming alarmists insist that it should no longer be called global warming. Instead, it should be called climate change. That way all bad weather, especially nasty cold spells, can be blamed on carbon emissions.

In the interim, though, they continually point to higher temperatures around the globe. So it still is really global warming, isn't it?

And then there is the political aspect to all this. The only game in town is cap and trade to deal with the situation, which science has repeatedly shown is not a suitable solution to the problem, if it even is a problem, to substantially reduce carbon emissions.

The whole movement is a cluster.

Movement? It is not a movement. And cap and trade is NOT the only deal in town. Alternative energy, electric transportation, and many other technologies are all on the table. But none of it will matter if we don't all get on board and agree that there is a problem, and then work to rectify it.

Ok genius, come up with a viable alternative that will sell itself.

Until then, we have the Al Gores of the world wanting our tax dollars to save the world.

How about the fact that solar energy output is projected to double in the U.S. in two years (barring the GOP pulling the plug for their Koch buddies)? Or the fact that more and more automobile manufacturers are pushing out more hybrids and electric cars? Or the fact that Toyota just started mass producing the first hydrogen cell car. The changes are not coming. They are here. Get used to it.

Pull the dam plug... If it cant stand on its own then its not reality.. The EU has pulled the plug and this year alone another 1,500 plus wind turbines now set unused and rusting.

Using your model, much of the country wouldn't even have electricity today. You really should look into the history of electricity in this country. The EU has pulled the plug on alternative energy? Clue - this is not make up shit Thursday.

Electricity became a transformational technology under the Coolidge Administration

 

[kaz]

Might I suggest you get out a basic science book and read up on just what is a theory and what is a fact? And then you can leave proofs to the mathematicians.

Besides being snotty, I'm not sure what your point is. Do you know what the scientific method is and how it pertains to "fact" in science? If global climate change were "fact," then why did they write a position paper? That makes no sense. Though since you don't understand it, maybe not making sense and you not understanding it cancels each other out

They and many others have published position papers on it because they want the public to know that they support the science, and dude, they support it because they know it has scientific merit. You don't see them putting out position papers on denier arguments because they know those arguments DON'T have scientific merit.

1) You still haven't admitted you were wrong when you kept stating they claim it is "fact." Man up and just say you were wrong on that

2) The process of pointing at "position papers" isn't even. Global warming is a large, multifaceted issue. Anyone who claims global warming is fiction is as wrong as anyone who claims it is fact. And clearly something is different. The questions are to what extent climate has been impacted, to what extent that was caused by man and what the long term impact it. Things happening counteract each other as well. To what degree? How will the earth adapt? There are so many unknowns. Position papers are positive positions of beliefs. There have been many studies and papers countering aspects of global warming and showing flaws in studies supporting it. You can't just count position papers and draw a conclusion that science says one thing, it doesn't. The warming earth believers just sweep flaws under the rug and say they still believe it

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, with endless changes that whole time. And we have a few decades of allegedly man made global warming to compare to that. And you think it’s even possible to do that and establish as fact that global warming is true, it is caused by man and you can accurately predict the impact that is going to have going forward?

What you have proven is you are full of shit, you were never published in anything because that would have required a peer review and frankly, my woody man, they would have laughed at you with that logical capability

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

Not really. That's like saying a historian understands physics because he wrote about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

 

[orogenicman]

Nowhere in that record do we see the huge changes in both temperatures and ghg concentrations that we have seen from the last 150 years. That is a change we've not seen before. I not only think that we can determine the cause, I think we have already made that determination. Moreover, we are already seeing its impact all across the globe.

By the way, I am one of these three authors:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN

Thanked you for the article, I will read it. No sarcasm or disrespect intended in that.

And you realize you just completely contradicted that it is "fact?"

You are welcome.

They are flat out stating “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” What part of this do you not understand?

I read the abstract, the article is $15. Since it's not my subject, I don't think I'd get enough out of it to buy it. All I can say though is that even if as you say you are describing a data point, that doesn't make you an expert still in modern climate change any more than being an expert in roads makes you an expert on cars

I didn't say I was an expert in modern climate change. That said, I am an expert in determining paleoclimate from lithologic and paleobiological evidence, which does mean that I have more to say on climate change than most here.

You also said position papers represent "fact." Do you know what the scientific method is and how that relates to that statement?

Oh please, get over yourself, already. You know what the position paper said. I know what it said. Time to move on.