The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[LoneLaugher]

Anything the left can do to keep the recovery a dream is there goal...
Then they will blame it all on the GOP.

Great dose of stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global warming is not a hoax.

You can claim I'm wrong and dismiss the evidence, but someone needs to actually present a fraction of that evidence.

First of all, someone claimed that the oceans had only been warming for the last ten years. This is untrue:

It's been repeatedly said that there is "not a shred" of evidence that there is man-made climate change. This is also completely wrong. The most famous piece of evidence is the "hockey stick" graph, showing the sharp increase in temperature outside the normal variation in the last hundred years:

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

 

[zeke]

Global warming is not a hoax.

You can claim I'm wrong and dismiss the evidence, but someone needs to actually present a fraction of that evidence.

First of all, someone claimed that the oceans had only been warming for the last ten years. This is untrue:

It's been repeatedly said that there is "not a shred" of evidence that there is man-made climate change. This is also completely wrong. The most famous piece of evidence is the "hockey stick" graph, showing the sharp increase in temperature outside the normal variation in the last hundred years:

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

"The norm" as defined by whom?

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

Coinciding events do not indicate any causal relationship.

 

[Freewill]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

I am so sick of your type of pretender. A pretender that seems to think that the US can do anything about your supposed climate change. You pretend to not know that no matter what the US does China will increase their Carbon output making anything we do insignificant. I even read a pretender saying that China was doing more then the US and that is just a bald faced lie if not delusion. China and India are laughing at us while Obama tries to destroy the country over climate change to which we can do nothing. I believe that Obama means well but he doesn't have anything that he can think of as productive to leave as his legacy so he is just yields to his ideological bent.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Pathetic that one would think matters of Science rests with one political party over another.

 

[Erand7899]

Global warming is not a hoax.

You can claim I'm wrong and dismiss the evidence, but someone needs to actually present a fraction of that evidence.

First of all, someone claimed that the oceans had only been warming for the last ten years. This is untrue:

It's been repeatedly said that there is "not a shred" of evidence that there is man-made climate change. This is also completely wrong. The most famous piece of evidence is the "hockey stick" graph, showing the sharp increase in temperature outside the normal variation in the last hundred years:

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are outside the norm, but no climate event has been observed that is outside the norm of observed history. In fact, none of the horrors proclaimed by the climate change cult has taken place, and there is little evidence that those horrors will ever occur.

This earth has seen temperature spikes greater than this spike, within this ice age cycle. The interglacial warm period was a boon to Europeons, and Greenland was actually farmable. That was followed by a cold spike called the little ice age. There is also some evidence that another warm spike occurred back in Roman times.

If the earth is about to enter a cold cycle, a little manmade global warming may be a welcome mitigation.

 

[Paperman299]

Global warming is not a hoax.

You can claim I'm wrong and dismiss the evidence, but someone needs to actually present a fraction of that evidence.

First of all, someone claimed that the oceans had only been warming for the last ten years. This is untrue:

It's been repeatedly said that there is "not a shred" of evidence that there is man-made climate change. This is also completely wrong. The most famous piece of evidence is the "hockey stick" graph, showing the sharp increase in temperature outside the normal variation in the last hundred years:

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

Firstly, my "impression" of what someone said came from this post:

Why is the warming only happening in the oceans in the past decade?

Honestly, your post has some fascinating points. But most every model puts the global increase in temperature as a result of a doubling of CO2 at 2C atleast. The effects of even this much of a change would be "a different planet." Further, stating that climate change is more complex than CO2 levels (which I agree with) but also dismissing factors you don't like as "magic" is incongruous at best.

I have actually made no larger assumptions about the climate denier population. The thread is rife with people claiming there is "no evidence" for man-made climate change, and my rebuttal was for them. And if you have a grasp on the science, I would much appreciate your help in rebuking those people and their flawed understanding of the fundamentals, rather than simply dismissing them as not part of your sect of climate denial.

 

[Paperman299]

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are outside the norm, but no climate event has been observed that is outside the norm of observed history. In fact, none of the horrors proclaimed by the climate change cult has taken place, and there is little evidence that those horrors will ever occur.

This earth has seen temperature spikes greater than this spike, within this ice age cycle. The interglacial warm period was a boon to Europeons, and Greenland was actually farmable. That was followed by a cold spike called the little ice age. There is also some evidence that another warm spike occurred back in Roman times.

If the earth is about to enter a cold cycle, a little manmade global warming may be a welcome mitigation.

Based on the data we have currently, the spike we are experiencing in global temperature is unique in the last few thousand years atleast. I'd also like to point out that the "hockey stick" is a visual representation of real temperature, NOT CO2 levels. It is our temperature, not just our CO2 levels, which is outside the normal variance.

And the data is so overwhelming on this that it is irresponsible not to legislate to ameliorate further climate change

 

[bripat9643]

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are outside the norm, but no climate event has been observed that is outside the norm of observed history. In fact, none of the horrors proclaimed by the climate change cult has taken place, and there is little evidence that those horrors will ever occur.

This earth has seen temperature spikes greater than this spike, within this ice age cycle. The interglacial warm period was a boon to Europeons, and Greenland was actually farmable. That was followed by a cold spike called the little ice age. There is also some evidence that another warm spike occurred back in Roman times.

If the earth is about to enter a cold cycle, a little manmade global warming may be a welcome mitigation.

Based on the data we have currently, the spike we are experiencing in global temperature is unique in the last few thousand years atleast. I'd also like to point out that the "hockey stick" is a visual representation of real temperature, NOT CO2 levels. It is our temperature, not just our CO2 levels, which is outside the normal variance.

And the data is so overwhelming on this that it is irresponsible not to legislate to ameliorate further climate change

The Hockey Stick is a fraud and a con. When AGW cult members spout discredited data as evidence for the AGW hoax, you know they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They are just regurgitating propaganda they read at ThinkProgress.org

 

[flacaltenn]

Global warming is not a hoax.

You can claim I'm wrong and dismiss the evidence, but someone needs to actually present a fraction of that evidence.

First of all, someone claimed that the oceans had only been warming for the last ten years. This is untrue:

It's been repeatedly said that there is "not a shred" of evidence that there is man-made climate change. This is also completely wrong. The most famous piece of evidence is the "hockey stick" graph, showing the sharp increase in temperature outside the normal variation in the last hundred years:

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

Hey.. You were rolling along just swell there until you got to the "outside of the norm" comment on historical observations. These "proxy studies" based on tree rings, and mud bugs and ice cores can only tell us so much. In one survey of Climate scientists, their biggest beef with their field was some of the leaps to conclusions about HOW accurate and COMPLETE those studies are. An individual study like say, Ocean bottom off of Fiji using ONE Proxy can be quite revealing. But when you try to compare the ENTIRE SURFACE of the earth a 1000 or 10,000 yrs ago to our MODERN satellite derived temperature anomalies, you have to use ALL available proxies and trouble ensues.

To make a long story shorter -- the TIME RESOLUTIONS of those GLOBAL proxy studies are in 100s of years. Our little 70 or 100 yr spike would hardly show. So the point is -- NOBODY should claiming anything about GLOBAL rates of change or absolute temperatures. We can write a GENERAL story about historical Global temperature, but finding 0.5degC over the ENTIRE globe for 6900BC is sketchy territory..

So you want this to be as simple as blaming oil?? OK -- you sequester the crap out of CO2 emissions and you STILL have pollution dontcha? Mans total yearly emissions are 1/20 of the natural CO2 cycle.. And 1/3 of the emissions charged to man comes from farming and land use.

It really is a matter of agreeing that CO2 probably is PART of observed warming, but the Climate System is still largely unexplored and needs to shed some of the agenda driven hype. If you don't like fossil fuels -- let's work on that WITHOUT twisting the science into spin and propaganda for public consumption...

 

[flacaltenn]

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are outside the norm, but no climate event has been observed that is outside the norm of observed history. In fact, none of the horrors proclaimed by the climate change cult has taken place, and there is little evidence that those horrors will ever occur.

This earth has seen temperature spikes greater than this spike, within this ice age cycle. The interglacial warm period was a boon to Europeons, and Greenland was actually farmable. That was followed by a cold spike called the little ice age. There is also some evidence that another warm spike occurred back in Roman times.

If the earth is about to enter a cold cycle, a little manmade global warming may be a welcome mitigation.

Based on the data we have currently, the spike we are experiencing in global temperature is unique in the last few thousand years atleast. I'd also like to point out that the "hockey stick" is a visual representation of real temperature, NOT CO2 levels. It is our temperature, not just our CO2 levels, which is outside the normal variance.

And the data is so overwhelming on this that it is irresponsible not to legislate to ameliorate further climate change

See my response to Zeke above.. There are no GLOBAL proxy studies that have the resolution to detect 100 year events. That INCLUDES the Mann Hockey and all the other "hockey sticks" out there. You've got to remember that we are all panicking (most of you) over 0.6degC in your lifetimes. And all those graphs are scaled that way. And looking at just historical study -- say Brazil using lake mud cores -- will show similiar events in recent geological history. But when you try to combine say 200 of those studies to cover the entire GLOBE and make a comparison -- you really don't get enough coverage of the globe and the time resolution sucks. It's like trying to digitize an audio signal at rates BELOW the speed of the sound waves.

So it is irresponsible NOW to making comparisons about the GLOBE and how our brief modern instrumentation observation compare with trees.

Someone coined a phrase -- "I think that I shall never see --- A thermometer as bad as a tree".. And THAT is a more rational view of our ability to look back into temperature on the planet..

 

[AntiParty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Sure 400 Scientists say that Global Warming is real. But they all have been busted using "Google". Google is used by the NSA to collect information. And 1 Scientist told a Fox News anchor that Global Warming is not real.

We should pay attention to the real power in factor here..........

The people who spend MILLIONS to make others state Global Warming isn't a "thing"

Follow the $$ small brains...

 

[Crystalclear]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Sure 400 Scientists say that Global Warming is real. But they all have been busted using "Google". Google is used by the NSA to collect information. And 1 Scientist told a Fox News anchor that Global Warming is not real.

We should pay attention to the real power in factor here..........

The people who spend MILLIONS to make others state Global Warming isn't a "thing"

Follow the $$ small brains...

Never heard about the periods of Ice Ages and interglacials? Well, there is a big chance that we live in an interglacial now, so it will become warmer before it gets colder again. Not because of mankind, but the planet itself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The desire to be contrarian is strong in these nutters.

 

[Politico]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Yeah money can change the fact that the environment changes and we can control nature.......not.

 

[zeke]

Don't know where you got that impression that ANYONE said the Oceans have only been warming for 10 yrs,, but perhaps it's the specific argument that has been proposed by the Climate clergy that Surface warming (both land and ocean) have been relatively static for the past 15+ years BECAUSE the heat is moving into the DEEP ocean (not the surface)..

The explanation lacks credibility because the rate of heat absorption by the DEEP oceans hasn't really changedc from the early 70s.

Several problems with the evidence as it stands. There IS NO CONSENSUS on how much the Earth will warm due a doubling of CO2 in the atmos. Even the IPCC projections have a range of variability from 1.5 to 5 or even 7degC.. That's not sufficient for folks to brag about "settled science" The vast majority of "deniers" like me ACCEPT that CO2 plays a minor role as climate forcing agent. In fact, the basic calculation of surface warming for a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2degC.. And (not shockingly) that is about the effect that we have observed 40% into a doubling of CO2 since pre-indust. times.

So my beef is with the "magic multipliers" that take CO2 and grant it superpowers that are STILL under review and dubious given historical performance.

Please don't believe that the majority of us are just ignorant of the evidence. The Church of Climate Weirding or whatever they call it today are just starting to admit that the Climate system of the Earth is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple ass correlation to CO2...

You sound really scientific, so let me ask you a question.

Fortunately our climate has left enough of a history that it has allowed man to study the climate conditions in some detail for a long time period.

Every one agrees that the climate is always changing.

Presently changes have been observed that are outside the norm of observed change.

The one variable that is present since the changes began is the burning of large amounts of coal and oil.

Why would you not think that the burning of oil and coal is the reason for the changes being observed? That is the one thing that has not been done before. Ever. Therefore there is no history of this being done to study. We don't know what the results will be. But trends indicate the changes won't be for the better.

Hey.. You were rolling along just swell there until you got to the "outside of the norm" comment on historical observations. These "proxy studies" based on tree rings, and mud bugs and ice cores can only tell us so much. In one survey of Climate scientists, their biggest beef with their field was some of the leaps to conclusions about HOW accurate and COMPLETE those studies are. An individual study like say, Ocean bottom off of Fiji using ONE Proxy can be quite revealing. But when you try to compare the ENTIRE SURFACE of the earth a 1000 or 10,000 yrs ago to our MODERN satellite derived temperature anomalies, you have to use ALL available proxies and trouble ensues.

To make a long story shorter -- the TIME RESOLUTIONS of those GLOBAL proxy studies are in 100s of years. Our little 70 or 100 yr spike would hardly show. So the point is -- NOBODY should claiming anything about GLOBAL rates of change or absolute temperatures. We can write a GENERAL story about historical Global temperature, but finding 0.5degC over the ENTIRE globe for 6900BC is sketchy territory..

So you want this to be as simple as blaming oil?? OK -- you sequester the crap out of CO2 emissions and you STILL have pollution dontcha? Mans total yearly emissions are 1/20 of the natural CO2 cycle.. And 1/3 of the emissions charged to man comes from farming and land use.

It really is a matter of agreeing that CO2 probably is PART of observed warming, but the Climate System is still largely unexplored and needs to shed some of the agenda driven hype. If you don't like fossil fuels -- let's work on that WITHOUT twisting the science into spin and propaganda for public consumption...

Hey you were doing so good till you decided to denigrate the methods used to study climate. You know, ice core, tree rings, direct observations etc. And you even had one survey (link?) where the methods are in question as to the accuracy.

What method of studying past climate do you find is accurate enough for your conclusions?

Secondly, where do you get the idea the we have only been burning oil and coal for the past 70 to 100 years? And the problem you don't address is the exponential increase in the amount of oil and coal that is being burnt.

Couple that with the absolute fact that man has never done this before (burnt this much oil and coal) and you have no idea what the final outcome will be.

Then you don't address the elimination of massive forests that acted as scrubbers for the atmosphere. Every day thousands of acres of rain forest are cut down. The massive forests of north america and Europe are already gone.

So in your opinion, the burning of massive amounts of oil and coal and the removal of the forests that removed excess carbon from the air, those two events are actions that are not responsible for the increase in temperatures?

And we shouldn't worry to much because hey, there is a study that says this interpretation of climate data and events is wrong.

Burning stored carbon and putting it back into the atmosphere is OK. Why would you think that?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Beginning to look as if we are sure to get an El Nino toward the end of this summer. That might have some effect on the elections as the GOP keep up the 'it's really cooling' nonsense.

El Nino increasingly likely to start this summer, say Japanese forecasters | South China Morning Post

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Sure 400 Scientists say that Global Warming is real. But they all have been busted using "Google". Google is used by the NSA to collect information. And 1 Scientist told a Fox News anchor that Global Warming is not real.

We should pay attention to the real power in factor here..........

The people who spend MILLIONS to make others state Global Warming isn't a "thing"

Follow the $$ small brains...

Never heard about the periods of Ice Ages and interglacials? Well, there is a big chance that we live in an interglacial now, so it will become warmer before it gets colder again. Not because of mankind, but the planet itself.

Look, would you at least do some research before flapping yap? Up until the last 150 years, the climate has been in a gradual cooling trend. Not only that, the Milankovic Cycles are now going toward a gradual cooling, we have already had the major portion of the interglacial according to the times the previous interglacials have lasted.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

Sure 400 Scientists say that Global Warming is real. But they all have been busted using "Google". Google is used by the NSA to collect information. And 1 Scientist told a Fox News anchor that Global Warming is not real.

We should pay attention to the real power in factor here..........

The people who spend MILLIONS to make others state Global Warming isn't a "thing"

Follow the $$ small brains...

What on earth are you flapping yap about? Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is millions of scientists, not 400.