Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

Try the next size up in underwear bob. Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.

You don't have him on ignore?

 

[Saigon]

Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause. Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.

Yes. Because at this stage I think we can say that we KNOW that human acitivity is influencing the climate.

What we don't know is the extent of that influence. I'm sure experts can put parameters on that, but I haven't seen them.

So it is essential that we act - and also because acting benefits us all in other ways. It makes sense to conserve energy for other reasons - one of which is reducing costs for households and businesses.

I'll ignore all the Al Gore games - climate change science was known a century before Al Gore, and his influence was never anything to write home about outside the US anyway. Why do Americans obsess about the guy?

 

[saveliberty]

Try the next size up in underwear bob. Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.

You don't have him on ignore?

He does meet most of my criteria. Not quite done with him as a chew toy yet.

 

[Saigon]

To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that even though CO2, the most powerful driver of climate, has not risen consistently over the last 12 years and this is why the climate has cooled during that period. Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause. Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.

Yes. Because at this stage I think we can say that we KNOW that human acitivity is influencing the climate.

What we don't know is the extent of that influence. I'm sure experts can put parameters on that, but I haven't seen them.

So it is essential that we act - and also because acting benefits us all in other ways. It makes sense to conserve energy for other reasons - one of which is reducing costs for households and businesses.

I'll ignore all the Al Gore games - climate change science was known a century before Al Gore, and his influence was never anything to write home about outside the US anyway. Why do Americans obsess about the guy?

Where is the Nobel Committee based?

 

[code1211]

Try the next size up in underwear bob. Your current pairs seems to be restricting blood flow to your brain.

You don't have him on ignore?

He does meet most of my criteria. Not quite done with him as a chew toy yet.

He seems to have some kind of a key board based Tourett's disorder. I couldn't take it anymore.

 

[saveliberty]

Yep, it was fun to watch him have episodes and get manipulated.

 

[Saigon]

Where is the Nobel Committee based?

Sweden - so what?

I'm not seeing a point here at all. Trust me - if you listen to 100 conversations on climate change anywhere in the world outside the US, you'd be lucky to hear Gore's name once.

He's less important to the climate change debate here than the impact of cow farts.

It's like Canadians assuming the rest of the world loves Loverboy and the Tragically Hip.

 

[code1211]

To disprove this, all you need to do is prove that even though CO2, the most powerful driver of climate, has not risen consistently over the last 12 years and this is why the climate has cooled during that period. Of course we know that CO2 has risen constantly over the last 12 years and that climate has cooled and that either the theory behind AGW is wrong or that CO2 is a gang of unionized Greeks and refusing to work.

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 392 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2011[1] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [1][2]

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water and a reliable method of measuring the temperature of Ocean water was not in place until about 5 years ago. Being the warmest years since 1880 in an area that is 90% unmeasured is a little bit of a stretch, no?

Global climate change is not a thing that is measured by a stop watch. Citing one year is citing weather. Even citing a decade is a little ridiculous, but it demonstrates the ridiculousness of the CO2 based argument.

The Warmers argument is that CO2 is most important driver of climate. Controlling the contribution of man to this trace element in the atmosphere is asserted to be the way to control the climate. However, over a span of ten years, we know that this trace element in the atmosphere has increased while the climate has dropped.

Further, we know that even if we did decrease emissions and that decrease would have an impact, that impact would not be measurable for 100 years.

There is nothing in your argument that holds water.

 

[Saigon]

There is nothing in your argument that holds water.

Of course not.

And damn that silly NASA and their damn communist games!!

NASa must be funded by some solar panel company!!

 

[saveliberty]

...speaking of water...

 

[Saigon]

Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water .

Right....I'm sure Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Chile, Mozambique and Bolivia will be happy to hear that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Umm...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why would one of the wealthiest countries on earth require funds from the current with the highest foreign debt on earth?

Why do rich people hire accountants to dodge taxes or move their money to tax shelters or banks who won't report?

Efficiency and ability to keep what is theirs.

Right - so there is some kind of evil Scandinavian conspiracy to get aid money....yes...that makes sense.

Greed is the desire for money unearned. It is not the desire to keep what is earned.

I am not surprised you don't know the difference.

Some of the greediest people I know are the poorest.

 

[code1211]

Where is the Nobel Committee based?

Sweden - so what?

I'm not seeing a point here at all. Trust me - if you listen to 100 conversations on climate change anywhere in the world outside the US, you'd be lucky to hear Gore's name once.

He's less important to the climate change debate here than the impact of cow farts.

It's like Canadians assuming the rest of the world loves Loverboy and the Tragically Hip.

You said that Gore had no impact outside of the USA.

Sweden is outside of the USA.

Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Price for his deceptive and disingenuous work on Climate Change.

Clearly, Gore had an impact at least on the Nobel Committee which is outside the USA.

 

[code1211]

There is nothing in your argument that holds water.

Of course not.

And damn that silly NASA and their damn communist games!!

NASa must be funded by some solar panel company!!

Well, their money does come from the same source that Solyndra was draining.

Why does our space agency spend all of its time researching climate which is notably not extraterrestrial?

 

[Big Fitz]

I think he meant to say that Algore has almost no influence IN the United States. He's lauded by the rest of the ecofascisti world wide.

 

[code1211]

Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water .

Right....I'm sure Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Chile, Mozambique and Bolivia will be happy to hear that.

What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880? Any of the land masses you cite? Again, where is the basis for your claims?

If there is no instrumental record, there is no point in citing the instrumental record.

 

[skookerasbil]

If conservatives/sceptics are such wingnuts, how come the environmental radicals cant post up one single link that can illustrate how they are winning?

I can post up at least two dozen links showing domination by the skeptics ( not even including the scores of links about Cap and Trade being dead ) proving that this global warming crap is far more about being POLITICAL than it is about science. Thats life s0ns.......its called Realville. Despite the so-called mega-consensus, why is Cap and Trade dead as a doornail? By the assertions of the environmental radicals on here, it should have been a chip shot field goal from 2008 to 2010 when the left held political sway. But what happened? Nada........zero.........zilch.........egg.


So..................who's not winning?????



>>to curious seekers of reality who are in this forum..........you will notice that all the environmental people invariably ignore my posts in here. Ask yourself why??:

 

[Saigon]

I think he meant to say that Algore has almost no influence IN the United States. He's lauded by the rest of the ecofascisti world wide.

That really is the most staggering drivel.

Again - the fact that this is a political, partisan issue for you doesn't mean it is elsewhere. I've been really surprised at how blinkered and partisan your approach to this topic is. It really is possible to dismiss the political interests and view the technologies of osmotic, geothermal and coal without feeling you are being disloyal to your team. I just don't get the partisan bullshit at all.

 

[Saigon]

What percent of Mozambique was heavily instrumented to measure climate change in 1880? Any of the land masses you cite? Again, where is the basis for your claims?

If there is no instrumental record, there is no point in citing the instrumental record.

Most of the Southern Hemisphere is water and a reliable method of measuring the temperature of Ocean water was not in place until about 5 years ago.

So if measurements could not be made until 5 years ago - what places in the Northern Hemisphere were heavily instrumented in 1880?

Jesus man..this is just nosensical!!