Why do so many people deny climate change

[SSDD]

Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?

And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?

But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels. But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".

Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes. At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability. Lets see such a fingerprint.

And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region. Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.

 

[Abraham3]

Rajendra K. Pachauri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 20 August 1940 (age 73)

Nainital, United Provinces, British Raj (now Uttarakhand, India)

Nationality Indian
Alma mater North Carolina State University and La Martiniere Lucknow
Occupation Chief, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Director General, TERI, Head Yale Climate and Energy Institute

Religion Hindu
Spouse(s) Saroj Pachauri
Children Daughter Rashmi Pachauri-Rajan.[1]

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) has been serving as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[2][3] during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He has been appointed as Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) from July 2012 prior to which he was the Founding Director of YCEI (July 2009 – June 2012).

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He joined the North Carolina State University in Raleigh, USA, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a Ph.D. with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.[7] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[8] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[9]

And if you've never written any soft porn in your day, I have to ask you what you did with your testicles.

Actually, I haven't the faintest idea what you refer to with your "soft-porn" comment. The man's a hindu. They're not particularly known for excess lasciviousness.

And I don't know where you got YOUR information, but characterizing the man as a railroad engineer seems slightly prejudiced. Let's put all that text in nice clear tabular form:

Initial engineering education from the Indian Railway Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
MS in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Industrial Engineering
PhD in Economics

Director General The Energy and Research Institute (TERI)
Chancellor, TERI University
Chairman, Governing Council, National Agro Foundation
Chairman of the Board, Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society
Founding Director and Senior Adviser to Yale Climate and Energy Institute
and, since 2002, Chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

So you acknowledge that he is a railroad engineer. Again, what sort of scientific organization dealing with climate puts a railroad engineer in charge?

As to the soft porn....unsurprising that you would be uninformed. Typical. Look up "Return to Amora" Seems that he doesn't keep to the tenets of his religion either. Corrupt all the way through it seems.

Whether or not he was a railroad engineer (whatever you think that's supposed to mean) is irrelevant. He was once an infant shitting his diapers. So were you. He has two PhDs, was a university chairman and headed climate research organizations at Columbia and Yale.

That he wrote something only shows me his skills and aptitudes are even wider than his CV would indicate. That you choose to describe it as "soft porn" tells me that it's so mild you're afraid you'd be laughed off the board (a prudish American board) for calling it outright "porn". I personally don't care if he revealed a hankering for young cows. He's doing a good job where he's at and I have no reason to criticize the man.

You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL.
I find it very difficult to restrain the idea that your comments here are based on ethnic prejudices. But I'll keep trying.

 

[bripat9643]

If glaciers were static objects that never experienced gains or losses of mass, often simultaneously, you might have a point. They are not, so you are wrong in your assumption.

Uh, no I'm not. All the AGW cult members are moaning that the glaciers are shrinking, but the existence of trees buried under them indicates 1000 years ago they were even smaller than they are now.

No sir, what it means is that you are clueless as to how glaciers work.

Actually, I do know how glaciers work.

How did the trees get there if the spot wasn't ice free 1000 years ago?

 

[bripat9643]

What would you call people who deny science?

I call them members of the AGW cult.

The IPCC is climate science. There is no science that says otherwise. Period.

Unfortunate for you. Do you have enough integrity to admit that?

The IPCC is a con. It would take integrity for you to admit that.

 

[westwall]

Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?

And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?

But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels. But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".

According to your logic there should have been no way for a tree to grow there.

 

[SSDD]

You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL..

It is the abysmal failure of his "attempt" at his job that prompts me to ask what sort of organization puts a railroad engineer/soft porn author in charge. Had he been doing a good job, I wouldn't have been prompted to ask the question in the first place. He has led the IPCC to the point of being a laughing stock and into its own demise. The IPCC has failed...the wheels are falling off your AGW crazy train and you are left desperately trying to maintain your faith. All is lost for you and yours.....the climate will not cooperate. By the time this cool period we are entering ends. you and yours will be long forgotten....like those who believed so fervently in eugenics.

 

[PMZ]

You, on the other hand, appear to find it appropriate to attack the man with simplistic misrepresentations and points completely irrelevant to his job performance and, in fact, not to mention his job performance AT ALL..

It is the abysmal failure of his "attempt" at his job that prompts me to ask what sort of organization puts a railroad engineer/soft porn author in charge. Had he been doing a good job, I wouldn't have been prompted to ask the question in the first place. He has led the IPCC to the point of being a laughing stock and into its own demise. The IPCC has failed...the wheels are falling off your AGW crazy train and you are left desperately trying to maintain your faith. All is lost for you and yours.....the climate will not cooperate. By the time this cool period we are entering ends. you and yours will be long forgotten....like those who believed so fervently in eugenics.

Consider the factual content of this post. I couldn't find one either. It's repeated propaganda. What the originator and his minions wish people to think and believe.

Self serving? You betcha.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?

And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?

But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels. But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".

Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...

And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting.
Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..

 

[PMZ]

Why should anyone be surprised that a glacier was growing, a thousand years ago?

And why don't you tell us what - for you - would qualify as a "definitive human fingerprint" so we don't waste time playing guessing games?

But, while I'm typing, I'd proffer the isotopic analysis that shows that every bit of the excess CO2 (above 280 ppm) came from the combustion of fossil fuels. But do feel free to explain why that's not a "definitive human fingerprint".

Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...

And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting.
Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..

I think that we have pretty good records of fossil fuels by type consumed as far back as we've used them as well as cement manufacture and forest clearing.

With those records and arithmetic we know how much of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere our activities put there.

Simple chemistry and physics tell us the consequences of our contributions.

What we can't know yet is what we will add to that before we're done and what effects caused by what we did and do will add to our damage

Finally, exactly what the weather and sea level will be like in the new climate and what adaptation to our civilization will be required and when.

There is a whole science that has been developed around risk mitigation and uncertainty.

Combining climate science and statistics gives us valuable insight on prudent actions.

Typical business methodology.

 

[itfitzme]

Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes. At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability. Lets see such a fingerprint.

And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region. Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.

Wow, no manner of reality is going to get through your ignorance, is it?

Mythbusters experiement;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=player_detailpage]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Wikipedia - Beer-Lambert
Beer?Lambert law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infrared
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Perhaps if you stomp your feet three times and repeat, "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you and Toto can visit the Wizard of Oz for a while. Be sure to pout.

You are amazing.

 

[SSDD]

Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes. At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability. Lets see such a fingerprint.

And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region. Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.

Wow, no manner of reality is going to get through your ignorance, is it?

Mythbusters experiement;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=player_detailpage]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Wikipedia - Beer-Lambert
Beer?Lambert law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infrared
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Perhaps if you stomp your feet three times and repeat, "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you and Toto can visit the Wizard of Oz for a while. Be sure to pout.

You are amazing.

And exactly which part of any of that do you think points towards anything that is outside of natural variability....or a definitive human fingerprint in the global climate. Clearly you believe, but like the dogma that rocks regularly links, what you claim is there, is not. Feel free to point it out specifically if you think it is there.

Don't worry about disappointing me when you are unable to describe where the information you claim to be in those links is....we both already know that it isn't. What strikes me as amazing is that you idiots believe that because CO2 absorbs and immediately emits IR, that it can cause warming. How stupid do you have to be to believe in a magic gas?

Want some magic beans to go with your magic gas? I have some for sale...a bargain at a million dollars each.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who ya gonna call???

MythBusters...


Catchy tune that... Using Theatre LIGHTS to model Long Wave IR ---- Piss Poor Science..

 

[SSDD]

Who ya gonna call???

MythBusters...


Catchy tune that... Using Theatre LIGHTS to model Long Wave IR ---- Piss Poor Science..

Shows exactly what passes for science in his mind....no wonder he has swallowed the hoax hook line and sinker. If he thinks that was science, it is no wonder he views the IPCC as a real scientific body.....railroad engineer/soft porn writer and all.

 

[itfitzme]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo&feature=player_detailpage]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ&feature=player_detailpage]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

The list goes on and on.

If you still are not convinced, you can do it yourself.

Materials:

1. Automobile
2. Dry Ice
3. Duct Tape
4. Thermometer
5. Sunny spot
6. Record Book
7. Clock.

Seal all the vents and cracks in your car with duct tape. Purchase twenty pounds of dry ice. Put it in the back seat of your car. Park the car in the sun. Sit in front seat. Hold thermometer. Record temperature every five minutes.

 

[Abraham3]

The IPCC is climate science. There is no science that says otherwise. Period.

BING... (wait for it)... ... F-ing... ... (wait for it) ... GO ! ! !

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...

And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting.
Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..

Sure it is. We have been tagging CO2 molecules since 1940.

What is a molecular tag? - Yahoo! Answers

"It ... refers to a molecule that has been "tagged" or "labeled" with a radioactive atom so that one or the other can be traced.

For example, tagging the H2O or CO2 used by plants in photosynthesis with radioactive O2 allowed researchers in the 40s to determined that the O2 released in photosynthesis originally came from water, not CO2"

Didn't you know?

 

[PMZ]

Every time you use the term "denier" you're insulting us, so your complaints come off as crocodile tears.

What would you call people who deny science?

I call them members of the AGW cult.

Tell us about the science that they deny.

 

[PMZ]

If trees have been buried by a glacier for 1000 years, that means 1000 years ago the glacier was smaller than it is now.

If you can't figure out what that means, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

If glaciers were static objects that never experienced gains or losses of mass, often simultaneously, you might have a point. They are not, so you are wrong in your assumption.

The climate isn't static either but you warmers seem to think it is. Show me one study that finds, and proves a definitive human finger print in the present global climate.

The dumbest question of the night. Which point do you disagree with?

Human's burn fossil fuels.

Burning fossil fuels create carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide from energy production is released to the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gasses are those that absorb longwave radiation.

Once GHGs absorb radiation they immediately emit it in all directions.

The part that goes down, as compared to up, is absorbed by the earth's water, land, life, ice, and atmosphere.

The only way that planetary energy balance can be maintained is to energize outgoing radiation by higher surface temperatures.

Which one is in question in your mind?

 

[bripat9643]

Because it has yet to be proven that the additional CO2 causes warming. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that could not easily be due to other causes. At present, all warming is within the confines of natural variability. A definitive human fingerprint would be one that steps outside of natural variability. Lets see such a fingerprint.

And consider the time line regarding that glacier...those trees were growing during the MWP...a time which you warmers claim was barely, if at all as warm as today and the warmth only happened in the North Atlantic region. Clearly those trees were growing in a climate that was warmer than the present and oddly enough, the glacier was not in the north atlantic.

Wow, no manner of reality is going to get through your ignorance, is it?

Mythbusters experiement;
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=player_detailpage]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Wikipedia - Beer-Lambert
Beer?Lambert law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infrared
http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Perhaps if you stomp your feet three times and repeat, "CO2 doesn't cause warming", you and Toto can visit the Wizard of Oz for a while. Be sure to pout.

You are amazing.

That experiment is still flawed. The gases were introduced during the experiment. We don't know the temperature of the gases in the bottles. The "greenhouse" gases could have been stored in a room at significantly higher temperature.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

No banana.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah,,, You go right ahead and proffer that.. Except that the isotopic fingerprints of carbon combustion are pretty indistinguable from some natural sources...

And that man is charged for NATURAL sources of CO2 as well in the accounting.
Makes it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (to 100% certainty) that anyone could claim that "every bit" came from fossil fuels..

Sure it is. We have been tagging CO2 molecules since 1940.

What is a molecular tag? - Yahoo! Answers

"It ... refers to a molecule that has been "tagged" or "labeled" with a radioactive atom so that one or the other can be traced.

For example, tagging the H2O or CO2 used by plants in photosynthesis with radioactive O2 allowed researchers in the 40s to determined that the O2 released in photosynthesis originally came from water, not CO2"

Didn't you know?

SO how did tagging some sources prove that all the CO2 comes from humans?