Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing

[SSDD]

student.

• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Not even student. If you are studying a science, any science, you are over qualified for that bunch. You get a membership card akin to belonging to the Mickey Mouse or Little Orphan Annie club and you get to pay dues and like mikey mann claim that you are part of something that you really aren't.

 

[IanC]

student.

• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Not even student. If you are studying a science, any science, you are over qualified for that bunch. You get a membership card akin to belonging to the Mickey Mouse or Little Orphan Annie club and you get to pay dues and like mikey mann claim that you are part of something that you really aren't.

Friday Funny – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists | Watts Up With That?

 

[rh287]

Well if you think climate change is a dangerous theoretical problem, check out CERN's intentional creation of micro black holes to test the theory of Hawking Radiation . That's far more scary to me than global warming.

 

[westwall]

The people whose profits depend on assessing risk, the INSURANCE COMPANIES, are expressing their belief in Global climate change clearly enough.

They believe in it, and are backing down from insurance against the natural disasters that ARE STATICIALLY growing more common in the North American continent and more destructive than ever.


Now INSURANCE companies do NOT leave money on the table if they think there's money to be made.

So while you DENIERS all claim that only lefties believe in climate change?

The people who are clearly NOT lefties, but whose incomes depend on what happens to the climate DO.


Do feel free to investigate whether or not what I am telling you is true.

I beg to differ. The insurance companies have seen the way the governments are going and get to make a ton of money for virtually no risk. It's a fraud made in insurance company heaven.

 

[daveman]

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of America for Affiliates

Eligibility:
• Interested person who does not have a degree in geology or related field.
• Neither professionally trained nor employed in geology or related field (i.e., any physical or biological sciences, or other disciplines such as engineering, or geography).
• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Affiliates
(non-scientists)
Be part of the community that is shaping the future of earth science!

Stay Current on the Latest Geoscience News and Research
Take Advantage of Member-Only Discounts
Share the Fun and Adventure of Earth Science​

You don't even get to vote. They just take your dues.

student.

Student/Recent Grad Membership Eligibility:
• STUDENT:
Undergraduate or graduate student enrolled and majoring in geology or a related science.
• RECENT GRADUATE:
Graduated with a degree in geology or related science within the last two years, and not planning to re-enter an academic. After two years, Recent Grads move up to the Professional Member category.
A related science is any physical or biological science or other discipline such as engineering or geography.​

Where are you now enrolled?

 

[daveman]

student.

• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Not even student. If you are studying a science, any science, you are over qualified for that bunch. You get a membership card akin to belonging to the Mickey Mouse or Little Orphan Annie club and you get to pay dues and like mikey mann claim that you are part of something that you really aren't.

Friday Funny – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists | Watts Up With That?

Great Gaea's gargantuan gazongas!

UCS are nothing but AGW whores.

 

[IanC]

• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Not even student. If you are studying a science, any science, you are over qualified for that bunch. You get a membership card akin to belonging to the Mickey Mouse or Little Orphan Annie club and you get to pay dues and like mikey mann claim that you are part of something that you really aren't.

Friday Funny – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists | Watts Up With That?

Great Gaea's gargantuan gazongas!

UCS are nothing but AGW whores.

and yet they get quoted in newspapers because they have an official sounding name. in a way that is better than some of the real organizations that used to be scientific but now just trade away their banked credit of respect.

 

[IanC]

The people whose profits depend on assessing risk, the INSURANCE COMPANIES, are expressing their belief in Global climate change clearly enough.

They believe in it, and are backing down from insurance against the natural disasters that ARE STATICIALLY growing more common in the North American continent and more destructive than ever.


Now INSURANCE companies do NOT leave money on the table if they think there's money to be made.

So while you DENIERS all claim that only lefties believe in climate change?

The people who are clearly NOT lefties, but whose incomes depend on what happens to the climate DO.


Do feel free to investigate whether or not what I am telling you is true.

I beg to differ. The insurance companies have seen the way the governments are going and get to make a ton of money for virtually no risk. It's a fraud made in insurance company heaven.

insurance companies used to hold more of the risk in their own hands, and therefore just refused to insure many things. now that big insurance companies are re-insuring higer risk policies the rules are freer (anybody remember Freddy and Fanny?).

I have a rec property that I never thought would be insurable but I could, and it was cheap. it made me feel better when the forest fire missed me by less than a kilometre.

 

[daveman]

Geological Society of America for Affiliates

Eligibility:
• Interested person who does not have a degree in geology or related field.
• Neither professionally trained nor employed in geology or related field (i.e., any physical or biological sciences, or other disciplines such as engineering, or geography).
• Not currently studying such science at the collegiate level.

Affiliates
(non-scientists)
Be part of the community that is shaping the future of earth science!

Stay Current on the Latest Geoscience News and Research
Take Advantage of Member-Only Discounts
Share the Fun and Adventure of Earth Science​

You don't even get to vote. They just take your dues.

student.

Student/Recent Grad Membership Eligibility:
• STUDENT:
Undergraduate or graduate student enrolled and majoring in geology or a related science.
• RECENT GRADUATE:
Graduated with a degree in geology or related science within the last two years, and not planning to re-enter an academic. After two years, Recent Grads move up to the Professional Member category.
A related science is any physical or biological science or other discipline such as engineering or geography.​

Where are you now enrolled?

Yo, Roxy! Did you lie on your app?

 

[SSDD]

Friday Funny – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists | Watts Up With That?

That dog looks overqualified.

 

[SSDD]

UCS are nothing but AGW whores.

Wonder if they get decoder rings?

 

[AlexWA]

I'm sorry but to deny global warming and to deny the fact that humans ARE contributing to that warming is not only incredibly dangerous to this planet's future but also very close-minded. We humans are THE most destructive environmental force and species on this planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sorry but to deny global warming and to deny the fact that humans ARE contributing to that warming is not only incredibly dangerous to this planet's future but also very close-minded. We humans are THE most destructive environmental force and species on this planet.

Well Welcome to USMB my fellow DESTRUCTOR !!

So this dustup about the CAUSE of climate change is less about being informed by facts and science and more about FAITH that man is just a blight on the planet?

That easy eh? I might want to convert.. This responsible citizen stuff is too hard for me..

No -- new poster is NOT a sock.. I've seen this before. It's just a pissed-off Green party member celebrating their recent election victory...

 

[SSDD]

I'm sorry but to deny global warming and to deny the fact that humans ARE contributing to that warming is not only incredibly dangerous to this planet's future but also very close-minded. We humans are THE most destructive environmental force and species on this planet.

First off, according to the so called gold standard temperature record, there has been no global warming. Manmade or otherwise. Atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise, but alas, no warming. That being the case, a thinking person simply has to take this as pretty hard evidence that CO2 is not driving the climate and there is something far more potent at work in the climate. A person who is emotionally invested in the evils of capitalism might continue to believe that a trace gas within the atmosphere continues to drive the climate in spite of the evidence otherwise....actually, in spite of any actual evidence at all....ever.

True, we can be destructive and have, and continue to do great damage to the environment but much of that conversation is being dumped on the trash heap because wacko warmists blame everything on CO2 and in doing so get laughed at or ignored.

There is a thread called the ocean's rain forests or something like that that describes damage to coral reefs due to farm run off, boat props, leaking tankers, easy access to sensitive areas by the public etc, but the nut ball who posted the article started out of the gates with some nonsense about boiling oceans. The thread then went on to point out to him that the damage to coral wasn't due to climate change but other factors. Those other factors of course, didn't get discussed because the wacko tried to make it about climate change when it actually wasn't.

If you want to have a serious discussion about the climate, you will have to not make it about climate change if it really isn't about climate change. If it is, be prepared to give some proof that it is about climate change and then be prepared to give some proof that the cliamte change is the result of man's activities.

Important discussions are not happening because they are being presented by chicken littles crying that the sky is falling and that everything under the sun is due to CO2 when it obviously isn't.

 

[daveman]

I'm sorry but to deny global warming and to deny the fact that humans ARE contributing to that warming is not only incredibly dangerous to this planet's future but also very close-minded. We humans are THE most destructive environmental force and species on this planet.

You don't have to apologize for being an idiot. Welcome to the board!

 

[AlexWA]

I'm sorry but to deny global warming and to deny the fact that humans ARE contributing to that warming is not only incredibly dangerous to this planet's future but also very close-minded. We humans are THE most destructive environmental force and species on this planet.

First off, according to the so called gold standard temperature record, there has been no global warming. Manmade or otherwise. Atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise, but alas, no warming. That being the case, a thinking person simply has to take this as pretty hard evidence that CO2 is not driving the climate and there is something far more potent at work in the climate. A person who is emotionally invested in the evils of capitalism might continue to believe that a trace gas within the atmosphere continues to drive the climate in spite of the evidence otherwise....actually, in spite of any actual evidence at all....ever.

True, we can be destructive and have, and continue to do great damage to the environment but much of that conversation is being dumped on the trash heap because wacko warmists blame everything on CO2 and in doing so get laughed at or ignored.

There is a thread called the ocean's rain forests or something like that that describes damage to coral reefs due to farm run off, boat props, leaking tankers, easy access to sensitive areas by the public etc, but the nut ball who posted the article started out of the gates with some nonsense about boiling oceans. The thread then went on to point out to him that the damage to coral wasn't due to climate change but other factors. Those other factors of course, didn't get discussed because the wacko tried to make it about climate change when it actually wasn't.

If you want to have a serious discussion about the climate, you will have to not make it about climate change if it really isn't about climate change. If it is, be prepared to give some proof that it is about climate change and then be prepared to give some proof that the cliamte change is the result of man's activities.

Important discussions are not happening because they are being presented by chicken littles crying that the sky is falling and that everything under the sun is due to CO2 when it obviously isn't.

Good morning...

Ok post industrial revolution the Earth's average temperature has risen consistently. The past decade was one of the hottest on record. Look at the NASA report since the industrial revolution, it's not just coincidence. Arctic ice is rapidly vanishing, and all you have to do is look at the caps for proof of that. Ice sheets are melting. Glaciers are rapidly decreasing around the world. Sea levels are rising. The forests and oceans ability to absorb CO2 levels cannot keep up pollution levels resulting in more acidic waters. Coral reefs are being stressed by water changes to the point that massive bleaching continues...and no it is not just from farm runoff and boat props. Corals are living creatures and significantly react to water temperatures and acidity.

We humans are destroying the very forests, wetlands, and oceans that help balance this planet by ignoring our impact and using cycles as an excuse. We dump our trash and sewage into our water systems choking wildlife an creating massive dead zones. We fish, hunt, and destroy ecosystems to the point of near mass extermination of thousands of species of animals and plants. Factories around the world spew out millions of tons of pollution every day into the atmosphere. Hundreds of thousands of airplanes fly across the sky around the world every day dumping the exhaust and pollution of the jet fuel it burns into the atmosphere. Over a billion cars and trucks, over a billion think about that, around the world pump out its exhaust and harmful pollutants into the air every hour of the day. We destroy mountains mining for outdated resources. We search for dirty fossil fuels by destroying protected lands and drilling holes into the Earth all just to cling to a way of life that is unsustainable. And this is just a few of the harmful things we do.

To deny that we are impacting this planet to me is just blind and extremely arrogant. Sure the Earth has cycles which can also contribute but those cycles are long and spread out, the trend we have seen over the last century is very fast in comparison. And even if it is all just cycles, which is isn't, to try and justify our actions is shameful, and to try and lessen our impact on this Earth, and all the harm that we are doing to the Earth, and how we are contributing to climate change by claiming that the Earth is too big for us to mess up or that we do not impact it that much is just crazy to me.

I fear that the world will continue to put its head in the sand until it is too late, and at our current rate and mindset it looks inevitable. We need to end our obsession with old energy sources and move into a real future. Energy independence from the middle east is all well and good but does it really matter at the end of the day if we do not have a healthy Earth and responsible citizenry? When you combine our harmful way of life with regards to energy usage and consumption and then partner that with our insatiable greed and want for things at the expense of the animals and plants that we share this planet with you are left with a bleak future at this rate in my opinion.

 

[SSDD]

Ok post industrial revolution the Earth's average temperature has risen consistently.

Of course that rise began before the post industrial period. The rise began with the end of the little ice age. The rise shoud reasonably be expected to continue till the temperatures at least reach the level of the medieval or roman warm periods but could well continue on to the level of the holocene maximum. You can't build a scientific case out of coincendence.

It was the rise out of the little ice age and accompanying food production that made the industrial age possible.

The past decade was one of the hottest on record.

One of but certainly not THE hottest and certainly not as warm as the medieval or roman warm periods and not even close to the holocene maximum.

Look at the NASA report since the industrial revolution, it's not just coincidence.

All of the temperature databases, including the nasa record have been tampered with to quite an extent. The evidence is overwhelming.

Arctic ice is rapidly vanishing, and all you have to do is look at the caps for proof of that.

How much ice do you believe was at the arctic during either the roman or medieval warm periods? Do you believe there was any ice there during the holocene maximum?

Ice sheets are melting. Glaciers are rapidly decreasing around the world.

The ice sheets and glaciers have been melting for some 14 thousand years now. During that period they have retreated nearly 2000 miles. What makes you believe that that trend should not continue till the temperature reaches at least that of the medieval or roman warm periods?

Sea levels are rising.

Millimeters per century? So what. Sea level has risen some 600 feet in the past 14,000 years. Again, what makes you think that the trend is either unnatural or should stop on our account?

The forests and oceans ability to absorb CO2 levels cannot keep up pollution levels resulting in more acidic waters.

Most life on earth, land and sea evolved during times when atmospheric CO2 was between 1000 and 4000 ppm. Clearly such levels of CO2 are not unprecedented and the fossil record indicates that life on land and in the oceans flourished under such conditions.

Coral reefs are being stressed by water changes to the point that massive bleaching continues...and no it is not just from farm runoff and boat props. Corals are living creatures and significantly react to water temperatures and acidity.

Coral reefs are stressing due to runoff from farms and industry, access by boats and people, and leaking boats, not CO2. Studies have shown that the fears of acidification due to atmospheric CO2 are greatly overblown and there is the fact that most corals evolved during a time when atmospheric CO2 was above 3000 ppm.

We humans are destroying the very forests, wetlands, and oceans that help balance this planet by ignoring our impact and using cycles as an excuse.

Legitimate concern, but nothing to do with climate change and trying to frame such concerns in the context of climate change when it is obvious that is not the issue degrades the concerns and tends to get them ignored.

We dump our trash and sewage into our water systems choking wildlife an creating massive dead zones. We fish, hunt, and destroy ecosystems to the point of near mass extermination of thousands of species of animals and plants. Factories around the world spew out millions of tons of pollution every day into the atmosphere.

Again, not due to CO2 and to frame your concerns as such makes you appear like a hysteric.

Hundreds of thousands of airplanes fly across the sky around the world every day dumping the exhaust and pollution of the jet fuel it burns into the atmosphere. Over a billion cars and trucks, over a billion think about that, around the world pump out its exhaust and harmful pollutants into the air every hour of the day.

Show me one hard bit of evidence that proves that atmospheric CO2 is dangerous. At what level do you believe it becomes dangerous to life on earth? Remember that life has flourished at very high concentrations. In fact, by historical standards, the present atmosphere is potistively starved for CO2.

We destroy mountains mining for outdated resources. We search for dirty fossil fuels by destroying protected lands and drilling holes into the Earth all just to cling to a way of life that is unsustainable. And this is just a few of the harmful things we do.

But none of those things is caused by so called man made climate change. Like most warmists, you seem to be confused over the differences between pollution and climate change.

To deny that we are impacting this planet to me is just blind and extremely arrogant.

I never said that we were not impacting the planet. I said that we weren't causing climate change beyond that which can be accounted for by changing land use.

Sure the Earth has cycles which can also contribute but those cycles are long and spread out, the trend we have seen over the last century is very fast in comparison.

No it isn't. The temperature increase during both the medieval and roman warm periods came on much faster than our present climb out of the little ice age and the increase during the holocene maximum was much faster than present.

 

[flacaltenn]

Would be nice if we could actually FOCUS on protecting the earth and cleaning up TRUE pollutants. But this intransigient focus on man-made warming sucks all the air out of true enviromental protection...

And the concept that the glaciers SHOULDN'T be melting, kinda suggests another kind of catastrophic climate that would literally starve millions (you'd love that --- wouldn't you?) and affect the health of every eco-system on the planet.. Have you ever considered LIVING in a climate where glaciers are GROWING?

 

[SSDD]

Would be nice if we could actually FOCUS on protecting the earth and cleaning up TRUE pollutants. But this intransigient focus on man-made warming sucks all the air out of true enviromental protection...

And the concept that the glaciers SHOULDN'T be melting, kinda suggests another kind of catastrophic climate that would literally starve millions (you'd love that --- wouldn't you?) and affect the health of every eco-system on the planet.. Have you ever considered LIVING in a climate where glaciers are GROWING?

Like you said, it really isn't about preserving nature. It is about bringing down capitalism.

I don't believe greens spend much time wondering what anything they wish for would actually be like. They act like children imagining this pristine world where they could pick apples off the trees and commune with nature. I doutb that many of them grasp the reality that nature wants us, and every living creature dead and being processed through the food chain.

 

[IanC]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.