The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[daveman]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

07/29/2010: EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science

As if that actually means something. It's like asking the SS if Hitler was a bad guy.

 

[daveman]

Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him

Progressives do have a tendency for mindless violence.

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Yes, that's what the acolytes say.

 

[daveman]

Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.

Kosh, just because you'd gladly lie, cheat, steal and commit fraud for a buck, don't assume any others share you moral failings. We are not like you. All those scientists you slur could double their salaries by switching sides and becoming a liar denier, but they don't. They willingly take a pay cut rather than lie, and that gives them credibility.

In contrast, your side does the opposite, taking big bucks for lying.

Then again anyone speaking out against AGW is usually ousted.

Since denier scientists get published all the time, saying such a stupid thing makes you either delusional or dishonest.

AGW is religion and not based on any real science.

Kosh, being you're not capable of anything except parroting your cult's websites, your hypocrisy here is especially funny. If we ever need a professional to instruct us in the art of partisan asslicking, you'll be the first one we call. But outside of your expertise in that field, you're of no use to anyone.

There is far more money on the pro-AGW side.

There was a claim made last year that skeptical organizations are funded to the tune of almost a billion dollars. That, of course, was a lie, as shown in this article. Pro-cultist groups raise over a billion and a half dollars a year:

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.​

And that's not counting the money the government spends on AGW cult "science":

From 2011: How Much Money Are US Taxpayers Wasting On ?Climate Change?? Try $10.6 Million A Day | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change — and that’s just for this year!

Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go tochapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.

Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?

Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.​

"Follow the money!!" the cultists screech.

Except it always leads back to them.

 

[Crick]

You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.

Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.

 

[daveman]

You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.

Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.

Are you illiterate?

The NSF: "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%."

"NASA wants $438 million to study climate change..."

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research..."

$1,725,000,000 that's going directly to climate science.

Can you find a credible total that's going to skeptical scientists? Because I can't. Show your work, please.

 

[Iceweasel]

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In other words, they can't prove it. You don't need to rely on a consensus of opinion when you have facts at your disposal. At one time the consensus of scientific opinion was that we are living in a steady state universe. Big Bang proponents were deniers, until it too became the consensus.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.

Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.

Are you illiterate?

The NSF: "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%."

"NASA wants $438 million to study climate change..."

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research..."

$1,725,000,000 that's going directly to climate science.

Can you find a credible total that's going to skeptical scientists? Because I can't. Show your work, please.

What a racket! All that money for "Research" and they never do any experiments!

 

[daveman]

You're lumping in an enormous amount of money that never goes anywhere NEAR a climate scientist.

Kinda confirms Mamooth's comments about your honesty.

Are you illiterate?

The NSF: "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%."

"NASA wants $438 million to study climate change..."

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research..."

$1,725,000,000 that's going directly to climate science.

Can you find a credible total that's going to skeptical scientists? Because I can't. Show your work, please.

[MENTION=48966]Crick[/MENTION]? Didn't want you to miss this post. You have homework.

 

[mamooth]

Are you illiterate?

The NSF: "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Please tell us how, say, the $280 million spent to build and launch a satellite (the price tag for OCO-2) ends up in the pocket of a scientist.

You're literally declaring that the budget for weather satellites and various other weather gear is a socialist plot. Damn, you're stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you illiterate?

The NSF: "...$370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Please tell us how, say, the $280 million spent to build and launch a satellite (the price tag for OCO-2) ends up in the pocket of a scientist.

You're literally declaring that the budget for weather satellites and various other weather gear is a socialist plot. Damn, you're stupid.

You're right, there is no money in those budgets for scientists. LOL!

 

[mamooth]

All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.

So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.

 

[Crick]

Pro-cultist groups raise over a billion and a half dollars a year:

Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club. "Pro-cultists groups". Wow.

Five environment-specific groups [listed above] alone raised $1.6 BILLION

Okay. First, calling these groups "pro-cultist", all by itself, throws you out in the tall grass with some serious whackos there Dave. Second, you're not paying enough attention to what you, yourself are saying. What does the word "raise" mean to you? These groups subsist on DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC you twat. Not research grants. They aren't research organizations. They do not conduct climate research. They are environmental ADVOCACY groups. I'm sure they do advocate for reduced GHG emissions, but among all their other causes, it certainly doesn't use up the $1.6 BILLION dollars that the AMERICAN PEOPLE gave them out of their own pockets to do what they've been doing for many years. This, then, would be some of that money you listed that goes no where near any climate researchers. It ought to also give you a better idea where you and yours stand in the regard of the general public in the great scheme of things. The American public GAVE THESE GROUPS ONE BILLION, SIX-HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS of their OWN MONEY in A SINGLE YEAR. And you call these very same groups "pro-cultist". Yeah, you're mainstream Dave.

When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.[/INDENT]

Not by anything you've put up here so far. And if you want to even suggest that DONATIONS to environmental groups is equivalent to climate research, you'll need to pull out a mirror to see the liar in this debate.

And that's not counting the money the government spends on AGW cult "science":

Ahhh... there's the rub. As Cook et al found, the vast, vast majority of climate researchers accept AGW as valid. Most research these days BEGINS with the assumption that it is valid. So while there's a great deal of research being done to expland our knowledge of how the Earth's climate works - it being a very complex system, very little government money is being spent to convince the public that AGW is false and very few in government arguing that we need to know LESS about our climate or that we don't need to know ANYTHING AT ALL. Which seems to be where you're headed.

We need to spend money on climate research. And the results of the climate research done to date tells us that we need to spend money figuring out how bad it's going to get and how it's going to get bad. We need to spend money figuring out how to cut back on GHGs, how we might be able to directly reduce the GHGs we've already put into the air, how we might be able to counter their effects in general and in order to save and protect specific systems.

So, Dave, if you ask me, the thing we should be upset about is not that we're spending more money on climate change denial or more money on climate change research or remediation. I think we should be upset that ANYONE is spending ANYTHING trying to convince the public of a dangerous falsehood in order to maintain their obscene income. I think that ought to be a crime and they ought to go to jail for it. The Heritage Institute isn't conducting science. They're lying to the public on behalf of whoever pays them. The GWPF isn't conducting science. They're lying to the public on behalf of whoever pays them. The American Enterprise Institute doesn't care about the environment - they care about American businesses. Exxon/Mobil doesn't care about the environment - they care about Exxon/Mobil. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has no interest in sound science - they lobbied for the tobacco industry and now they lobby for the fossil fuel industry.

How is it you can sleep at night knowing that the core position you've taken here is that it's okay for people to lie to the public to get them to ignore a real threat they face in order for certain industries to continue to profit handsomely in the creation of that threat? How? Have you no shame?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All federal money is tracked to the penny. If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.

So show it. Or, if you want to be true to form as a gutless denier, scream an insane conspiracy theory about how all the financial records are faked.

If those scientists are getting graft, it will be trivial to show it.

Graft? How about just a paycheck for saying AGW is happening and the only fix is to spend trillions?

 

[Crick]

And you think a government employee - a PhD government employee, is going to get laid off must cause he doesn't come to the proper conclusions? You need to do some reading on job security in civil service. That man would have to murder someone, DURING WORKING HOURS, before anyone would broach the topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you think a government employee - a PhD government employee, is going to get laid off must cause he doesn't come to the proper conclusions? You need to do some reading on job security in civil service. That man would have to murder someone, DURING WORKING HOURS, before anyone would broach the topic.

Funding gets cut, someone has to go.

 

[Crick]

Yes, that could happen. That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept. A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list. Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former. Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints. Questioning those basics, however, IS likely to get your work rejected. At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.

There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics. And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much. For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos. Yet those status quos were NOT protected. They all fell.

Instead of thinking or worrying or pretending that denier viewpoints are being represssed by enemy powers, do some thinking and some worrying about what sort of a case you've actually got. You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is a false signal from urban heat islands. You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is due to increased solar irradiance. And you've convinced no one inside or out of science of the existence of a grand conspiracy - at least who wasn't someone looking for conspiracies under every rock and bush. Did you hear that a study found that people who believe the FBI assassinated JFK were several times more likely to believe that global warming was a conspiracy of climate scientists than people who did not? Where do you stand on JFK, Todd?

So, what is your case?

Is warming taking place or is it not?

What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that? Is it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says, yes, the world is getting warmer?

If it is, what is causing it? What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that? It it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation (ie, human activity) are the primary cause?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, that could happen. That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept. A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list. Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former. Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints. Questioning those basics, IS likely to get your work rejected. At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.

Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer,

Except for the last 15 years or so.

Even with "adjusted" data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, that could happen. That, of course, assumes that the government has a bias towards results that the rest of the scientific community can accept. A PhD whose work kept getting rejected for publication might make the "expendable" list. Now all you have to do is prove that peer reviewed journals regularly reject papers just because they question the widely assumed basics that the world is getting warmer, that GHGs have increased due to human activities and that the latter is the primary cause of the former. Beyond that there is still plenty of room for exploration and a divergence of viewpoints. Questioning those basics, however, IS likely to get your work rejected. At the very least, you better be able to make a damn good case cause you've got quite a pile of papers and the evidence they've accumulated to overcome.

There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics. And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much. For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos. Yet those status quos were NOT protected. They all fell.

Instead of thinking or worrying or pretending that denier viewpoints are being represssed by enemy powers, do some thinking and some worrying about what sort of a case you've actually got. You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is a false signal from urban heat islands. You've convinced no one in the sciences that global warming is due to increased solar irradiance. And you've convinced no one inside or out of science of the existence of a grand conspiracy - at least who wasn't someone looking for conspiracies under every rock and bush. Did you hear that a study found that people who believe the FBI assassinated JFK were several times more likely to believe that global warming was a conspiracy of climate scientists than people who did not? Where do you stand on JFK, Todd?

So, what is your case?

Is warming taking place or is it not?

What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that? Is it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says, yes, the world is getting warmer?

If it is, what is causing it? What evidence and what reasoning do you have to support that? It it better than the evidence and the reasoning that says anthropogenic greenhouse gases and deforestation (ie, human activity) are the primary cause?

more likely to believe that global warming was a conspiracy of climate scientists

Define conspiracy for me.

Is warming taking place or is it not?

We've been warming since the end of the LIA.

What's a climactic optimum? Why do they call it that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There have been cases where widely accepted theories have been overturned: the bacterial cause for stomach ulcers; the expanding universe and the Big Bang, the accelerating expansion of the universe; the Bohr model of the atom, classical Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics. And some of those upheavals happened very quickly and with very little fight - others, not so much. For every one of those, you could make the same argument: that the status quo would be protected out of greed and professional egos. Yet those status quos were NOT protected. They all fell.

Were any of those old theories pushed by a government looking for ever more control over our economy?

 

[orogenicman]

Progressives' childish insistence their fantasies are real would be charming if they weren't fucking up the country.

More truth to defeat the AGW cult:

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2

I guess you thought you were posting to a conservative forum, where people just nod their heads and don't fact check. Poor you. Neither of those numbers are correct. Try again.

Bump. And the crickets sing on and on and on...