The Politics of "Global Warming"... Or is it "Climate Change"?...

[RDD_1210]

The 80% of Scientists that you are Referring to can't say for Certain, that's the ONLY Fact.

Well, that and the FACT that their Prediction of NO SUMMER ICE IN THE ARCTIC BY 2013 was met with a 29% increase from 2012 to 2013.

Suck on the Facts.



peace...

Of course they can't predict the future for certain. But they can tell us what HAS been happening and how that we are warming and that is for certain.

Nope, just like they keep trying to predict how bad the hurricane seasons are going to be because of us.
They get burned every time.

Link?

 

[RDD_1210]

If you put them all on the payroll, you can get 100% of the agree.




If we spend $trillions of dollars on this hoax and drive up the price of energy by 4X or 5X, then you've hurt quite a lot of people. All the people pushing this hoax stand to make a lot of money off it. Anyone who isn't skeptical is a fool.

Yup, the entire world is on "the payroll"! Great analysis.

Follow the money, RD. Those guys don't work for free.

Right, nobody does.

And who do you think is funding the denier movement?

 

[bripat9643]

The FACT is that the physics don't lie. Human-generated CO2 will inevitably enhance the greenhouse effect, which will inevitably increase surface temperatures on earth. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIST disputes this phenomenon.

The question is, where do you go from there? Obviously, the inhabitants of the planet should work to produce as little CO2 as possible. Maximize energy sources that produce little or no CO2, maximize the thermal efficiency of those devices (mainly vehicles of one sort or another) that must produce CO2. Optimize thermal insulation of homes and workplaces. And so on.

Parenthetically, the Fukushima incident and the optimization of "fracking" have been a disaster for mankind's campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, by discouraging the proliferation of safe, clean nuclear power and encouraging the construction of gas-fired power plants (and eventually cars and trucks). But regardless...

We come now to the geopolitics. There is a large plurality of people in the "developed world" (including the U.S.) who want to regulate and restrict - essentially "punish" - producers of CO2 with fines, taxes, surcharges, fees, and so forth, and in the process they run the real risk of promoting an economic catastrophe. The classification by the EPA of carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant (which is bullshit) is an example of the power of these forces.

Like it or not, China, India, and soon Africa, are now building, and will continue building carbon-fired (mainly coal) power plants for the next couple generations, TO AN EXTENT THAT MAKES ANY EFFORTS BY THE U.S. TO CURTAIL CO2 EMISSIONS MEANINGLESS. It's like, we are trying to bail out a boat with a teaspoon while there is a big hole in the other side of the hull with water pouring in. We are wasting our time and effort.

In this country and in Western Europe, the "greens" HATE private industry, and capitalism in general. They are using fear of "global warming" or "climate change" (since the recent data don't really support the claims of warming) to promote irrational regulation of industrial activity, mainly out of pure resentment. And this marks the political battle line over global warming. The expression "watermelon" pretty much describes the green movement: green on the outside, but red on the inside. Fucking socialists, all of them.

BTW, the melting and expanding of the north polar icecap is not a good measure of global warming. In extremely cold conditions it doesn't snow much (It almost never snows at the South Pole, but when it does snow, it never melts), but as the temperature rises closer to the freezing point the amount of snow increases.

The complicity of the media in the "Global Warming" debate is demonstrated by the fact that they almost never mention the benefits of a warming planet. Longer growing seasons and milder winters in the temperate zones (where most of the world's population actually lives), and so on.

Physics doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.

 

[RDD_1210]

The FACT is that the physics don't lie. Human-generated CO2 will inevitably enhance the greenhouse effect, which will inevitably increase surface temperatures on earth. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIST disputes this phenomenon.

The question is, where do you go from there? Obviously, the inhabitants of the planet should work to produce as little CO2 as possible. Maximize energy sources that produce little or no CO2, maximize the thermal efficiency of those devices (mainly vehicles of one sort or another) that must produce CO2. Optimize thermal insulation of homes and workplaces. And so on.

Parenthetically, the Fukushima incident and the optimization of "fracking" have been a disaster for mankind's campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, by discouraging the proliferation of safe, clean nuclear power and encouraging the construction of gas-fired power plants (and eventually cars and trucks). But regardless...

We come now to the geopolitics. There is a large plurality of people in the "developed world" (including the U.S.) who want to regulate and restrict - essentially "punish" - producers of CO2 with fines, taxes, surcharges, fees, and so forth, and in the process they run the real risk of promoting an economic catastrophe. The classification by the EPA of carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant (which is bullshit) is an example of the power of these forces.

Like it or not, China, India, and soon Africa, are now building, and will continue building carbon-fired (mainly coal) power plants for the next couple generations, TO AN EXTENT THAT MAKES ANY EFFORTS BY THE U.S. TO CURTAIL CO2 EMISSIONS MEANINGLESS. It's like, we are trying to bail out a boat with a teaspoon while there is a big hole in the other side of the hull with water pouring in. We are wasting our time and effort.

In this country and in Western Europe, the "greens" HATE private industry, and capitalism in general. They are using fear of "global warming" or "climate change" (since the recent data don't really support the claims of warming) to promote irrational regulation of industrial activity, mainly out of pure resentment. And this marks the political battle line over global warming. The expression "watermelon" pretty much describes the green movement: green on the outside, but red on the inside. Fucking socialists, all of them.

BTW, the melting and expanding of the north polar icecap is not a good measure of global warming. In extremely cold conditions it doesn't snow much (It almost never snows at the South Pole, but when it does snow, it never melts), but as the temperature rises closer to the freezing point the amount of snow increases.

The complicity of the media in the "Global Warming" debate is demonstrated by the fact that they almost never mention the benefits of a warming planet. Longer growing seasons and milder winters in the temperate zones (where most of the world's population actually lives), and so on.

Physics doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.

You're a climate scientist?

 

[bripat9643]

The FACT is that the physics don't lie. Human-generated CO2 will inevitably enhance the greenhouse effect, which will inevitably increase surface temperatures on earth. NO CREDIBLE SCIENTIST disputes this phenomenon.

The question is, where do you go from there? Obviously, the inhabitants of the planet should work to produce as little CO2 as possible. Maximize energy sources that produce little or no CO2, maximize the thermal efficiency of those devices (mainly vehicles of one sort or another) that must produce CO2. Optimize thermal insulation of homes and workplaces. And so on.

Parenthetically, the Fukushima incident and the optimization of "fracking" have been a disaster for mankind's campaign to reduce CO2 emissions, by discouraging the proliferation of safe, clean nuclear power and encouraging the construction of gas-fired power plants (and eventually cars and trucks). But regardless...

We come now to the geopolitics. There is a large plurality of people in the "developed world" (including the U.S.) who want to regulate and restrict - essentially "punish" - producers of CO2 with fines, taxes, surcharges, fees, and so forth, and in the process they run the real risk of promoting an economic catastrophe. The classification by the EPA of carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant (which is bullshit) is an example of the power of these forces.

Like it or not, China, India, and soon Africa, are now building, and will continue building carbon-fired (mainly coal) power plants for the next couple generations, TO AN EXTENT THAT MAKES ANY EFFORTS BY THE U.S. TO CURTAIL CO2 EMISSIONS MEANINGLESS. It's like, we are trying to bail out a boat with a teaspoon while there is a big hole in the other side of the hull with water pouring in. We are wasting our time and effort.

In this country and in Western Europe, the "greens" HATE private industry, and capitalism in general. They are using fear of "global warming" or "climate change" (since the recent data don't really support the claims of warming) to promote irrational regulation of industrial activity, mainly out of pure resentment. And this marks the political battle line over global warming. The expression "watermelon" pretty much describes the green movement: green on the outside, but red on the inside. Fucking socialists, all of them.

BTW, the melting and expanding of the north polar icecap is not a good measure of global warming. In extremely cold conditions it doesn't snow much (It almost never snows at the South Pole, but when it does snow, it never melts), but as the temperature rises closer to the freezing point the amount of snow increases.

The complicity of the media in the "Global Warming" debate is demonstrated by the fact that they almost never mention the benefits of a warming planet. Longer growing seasons and milder winters in the temperate zones (where most of the world's population actually lives), and so on.

Physics doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.

You're a climate scientist?

No, but you are an imbecile.

 

[RDD_1210]

Physics doesn't lie, but climate scientists do.

You're a climate scientist?

No, but you are an imbecile.

Oh, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on this subject.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[mal]

You're a climate scientist?

No, but you are an imbecile.

Oh, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on this subject.

Thanks for confirming.

YOU don't.

You are one of the Faithful in algore's Church... And believe you me, it is FAITH.



peace...

 

[BlindBoo]

Predictably, the voices of denial are rising as Arctic sea ice melt season peaks and ranks only fifth-lowest ever. The clamor is being raised over Al Gore's Nobel Prize acceptance speech quote supposedly saying that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013.1 What Gore did or didn't say is beside the point: For the propagandists delivering this message, the objective is "cast doubt and discredit." From Gore's speech:


Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2

And yes, the deniers cannot even add. Not only did Gore not say "by 2013," but it would be 2014 at the soonest. ... On to reality:

Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013"

 

[BlindBoo]

I just have to ask. I don't see months on the photo. All I see is years. If I'm not mistaken, the arctic has seasons too right? During those seasons the ice melts in the summer and grows in the winter right? So who's to say that the 1012 photo wasn't summer and the 2013 photo wasn't winter? The photo shows the ice growing but if you would just research you would see that as of December 2013 the ice is 270,000 miles under the average. That is judging the ice sheets from 1981 to 2010. However in Antarctica the ice is above average but has had slow growth and some retreat.

With these maps you can compare dates.

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps

 

[RDD_1210]

No, but you are an imbecile.

Oh, so you don't know what the fuck you're talking about on this subject.

Thanks for confirming.

YOU don't.

You are one of the Faithful in algore's Church... And believe you me, it is FAITH.



peace...

Who is algore?

 

[Freewill]

From the following site:

Arctic sea ice extent for December was 12.38 million square kilometers (4.78 million square miles). This is 700,000 square kilometers or 270,300 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 average, making it the 4th lowest December extent in the 36-year satellite data record. Arctic sea ice expanded in December by 1.85 million square kilometers (714,000 square miles), slightly less than average, with some periods of very slow growth and even retreat as storms briefly pushed the sea ice edge northward.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

12.38/(12.38 + .7) MILLION = APPROXAIMATELY A 5 PERCENT DIFFERENCE IN THE AVERAGE. Panic sets in I suppose over whether the average is the desired.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Arctic is Already Functionally Ice-Free

Arctic sea ice was first deemed "almost seasonally ice free" in summer 2010 by professor David Barber. Barber is professor of environment and geography, Canada's research chair in Arctic system science and director of the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg.

Dr. Barber has been searching for 200-foot thick multiyear Arctic sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, an area of the Arctic Ocean that stretches for almost 1,000 miles along the coasts of Alaska and Canada.

For his research in summer 2010, he cruised through the Beaufort Sea in the ice breaker Amundsen and never did find that multiyear ice. What Barber's team did find was vastly different from what the satellites were telling them was there. They thought they would find 20- to 30-foot thick multiyear ice covering 7 percent to 9 percent of the Beaufort Sea.

Instead, they found 25 percent open water and very small remnant multiyear and first-year floes interspersed with thin new ice in between. Unfortunately, these satellite errors are not in our favor. The problem is because these conditions are new. They simply have not existed before, so there was no way to test for them and know that this sea icescape looks, to the eye of the satellite, exactly like a sea icescape that is thick and solid.7

The ice the Amundsen encountered was so rotten that it did not impede the forward progress of the ship. What they found was hundreds of miles of what Barber called "rotten ice." This was 20-inch layers of fresh ice covering small chunks of older ice.8 This discovery came as a great surprise to this researcher as he cruised through the rotten ice of the Beaufort Sea at 14 miles per hour (the top speed of his vessel in open water is 15 miles per hour). The Amundsen was designed to break 1-meter thick sea ice (3.3 feet) at 3.4 miles per hour. The ice they found was so rotten that the Amundsen could break 19 to 26 feet of rotten multiyear ice at 5.7 miles per hour.9

This fascinating tale was from summer 2010, remember. Carbon dioxide continues to accumulate; physics marches on.

Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013"

 

[Redfish]

Whatever the earth's climate is doing, man is not causing it, cannot change it, and cannot stop it.

AGW is a proven hoax, Algore it a proven fraud, it has been proven that the so-called experts cooked the books to support the lie.

Our planet has been changing for millions of years, it will be changing millions of years from now.

Man has always adapted to the changes. Man has never caused the changes.

Move on to something that matters.

 

[R.D.]

Whatever the earth's climate is doing, man is not causing it, cannot change it, and cannot stop it.

AGW is a proven hoax, Algore it a proven fraud, it has been proven that the so-called experts cooked the books to support the lie.

Our planet has been changing for millions of years, it will be changing millions of years from now.

Man has always adapted to the changes. Man has never caused the changes.

Move on to something that matters.

Sad reflection on the liberal today. They cannot adapt or accept its not about them

 

[Redfish]

Whatever the earth's climate is doing, man is not causing it, cannot change it, and cannot stop it.

AGW is a proven hoax, Algore it a proven fraud, it has been proven that the so-called experts cooked the books to support the lie.

Our planet has been changing for millions of years, it will be changing millions of years from now.

Man has always adapted to the changes. Man has never caused the changes.

Move on to something that matters.

Sad reflection on the liberal today. They cannot adapt or accept its not about them

true, not about them and not about them being able to punish someone else.

 

[RDD_1210]

Whatever the earth's climate is doing, man is not causing it, cannot change it, and cannot stop it.

AGW is a proven hoax, Algore it a proven fraud, it has been proven that the so-called experts cooked the books to support the lie.

Our planet has been changing for millions of years, it will be changing millions of years from now.

Man has always adapted to the changes. Man has never caused the changes.

Move on to something that matters.

 

[Meister]

Of course they can't predict the future for certain. But they can tell us what HAS been happening and how that we are warming and that is for certain.

Nope, just like they keep trying to predict how bad the hurricane seasons are going to be because of us.
They get burned every time.

Link?

Sure

Hurricane Season Proving to be a Flop
Hurricane season: U.S. told to brace for SIX potentially deadly storms this hurricane season as hardest hit victims of Superstorm Sandy still rebuilding | Mail Online
Hurricane Season A Bust? Don't Be So Sure | WYPR
Where have all the hurricanes gone? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | theguardian.com
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013...13-hurricane-season-is-here/?hurricane_2013=1
Hurricane Seasonal Forecasts Often Miss the Mark - The Numbers Guy - WSJ
Hurricane season begins with a new record hurricane drought for the USA | Watts Up With That?
Atlantic hurricane season ends - Disaster News Network
Don?t take that hurricane season forecast to the bank - SciGuy

 

[RDD_1210]

Nope, just like they keep trying to predict how bad the hurricane seasons are going to be because of us.
They get burned every time.

Link?

Sure

Hurricane Season Proving to be a Flop
Hurricane season: U.S. told to brace for SIX potentially deadly storms this hurricane season as hardest hit victims of Superstorm Sandy still rebuilding | Mail Online
Hurricane Season A Bust? Don't Be So Sure | WYPR
Where have all the hurricanes gone? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | theguardian.com
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013...13-hurricane-season-is-here/?hurricane_2013=1
Hurricane Seasonal Forecasts Often Miss the Mark - The Numbers Guy - WSJ
Hurricane season begins with a new record hurricane drought for the USA | Watts Up With That?
Atlantic hurricane season ends - Disaster News Network
Don?t take that hurricane season forecast to the bank - SciGuy

Thanks for the links. Now I will admit I didn't click every single one but I did look at about 4 or 5 of them and not one of them talked about how anyone predicted man would have an impact on the number of hurricanes. Is that not what you were saying in your previous post?

just like they keep trying to predict how bad the hurricane seasons are going to be because of us.

So which of your links says anything about scientists predicting specific hurricane activity being influenced because of us?

 

[R.D.]

So which of your links says anything about scientists predicting specific hurricane activity being influenced because of us?

Are you denying it?

 

[RDD_1210]

So which of your links says anything about scientists predicting specific hurricane activity being influenced because of us?

Are you denying it?

Denying what? He made a claim and then didn't provide proof of his claim. I haven't heard of climate scientists trying to predict hurricane season activity before based upon human actions. Have you?