Gullible Warming Hoaxers Pimp CNBC

[Old Rocks]

Your beloved peer review isn't science.

Nobody needs anyone else to review their information to prove that rising warm moist air causes cumulus clouds to form.....That can be reproduced and demonstrated as a fact on demand.

Get a new talking point.

BTW...The most dire estimates (and that's all they have) don't put man's contribution to overall atmospheric CO2 at 3%.

Sure, Dooodee, lie through you damned teeth. Here is a Proceending of the National Academies of Sciences paper. Your dingbat posts are supposed to carry more weight than the work of real scientists?

Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks — PNAS

The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% y −1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (P = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate have been ≈65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fox Business News (FBN) loves this one. They are right behind CNBC and are gaining on them fast. Look for Fox Business News to overtake CNBC and be #1 in ratings in the near future. NBC is no longer a credible Media Outlet and i think more & more people are figuring that out. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing for the Planet anyway. Many credible scientists point this out all the time. It's all boiling down to (excuse the pun) the Sun. The Sun's activities such as Sun Spots are the main cause of "Global Warming" and Global Cooling. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will actually create a Greener Planet. Most credible scientists are much more worried about possible Global Cooling in the future. Global Cooling will cause catastrophic crop failure which will lead to mass starvation. So if you're going to panic and worry everyday about this stuff then go ahead and worry about Global Cooling instead of "Global Warming." The Global Warming crowd has become nothing more than a gigantic hysterical Doomsday Cult at this point.

OK, dingbat, something from scientists to back up your bullshit?

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of lying through your teeth.

If you cannot reproduce your results on demand, it ain't science, numbnuts.

 

[garyd]

Yes and in 2004 one of the supposedly hottest years aon record we had complaints from all over the northern hemisphere about a summer that wasn't. Your data is supect ed. And your graph is really screwy first you are showing a red dot over Oklahoma wnich has been fairly mild all freaking year including what is thus far the collest October since we started keeping records. The Northern Rockies have one of the earliest snowfalls ever and some ski resorts are already opening.

Your damn hockey stick beings the year Krakatoa is estimated to have dropped world temperatures by as much as 2.4 dgerees C. And we're only up 1/2 a degree from that and you think thats bad?

 

[Old Rocks]

REAL scientists submit their work for peer review - political hacks submit op-ed pieces to political organs.

I'm STILL waiting.

REAL scientists can reproduce their work and prove their hypotheses on demand.

Something gullible warming hoaxers cannot do.

Stupid ass, we have only one planet to play with. Not only that, Svante Arrnhenius predicted global warming from his seminal work in atmospheric physics in 1896.

 

[ABikerSailor]

By the way people, when I said that the earth was a closed system, I meant that there is no where for stuff (toxin, pollution, etc) to go, unless it's put into orbit, and there is VERY LITTLE coming down from space in the form of matter.

And yes........the earth IS a closed biosystem.

 

[Oddball]

REAL scientists submit their work for peer review - political hacks submit op-ed pieces to political organs.

I'm STILL waiting.

REAL scientists can reproduce their work and prove their hypotheses on demand.

Something gullible warming hoaxers cannot do.

Stupid ass, we have only one planet to play with. Not only that, Svante Arrnhenius predicted global warming from his seminal work in atmospheric physics in 1896.

Right....Only one planet to play with,and you want a bunch of ivory tower eggheads who cannot reproduce their results to play around with it.

Speaking of stupid asses.

 

[Oddball]

By the way people, when I said that the earth was a closed system, I meant that there is no where for stuff (toxin, pollution, etc) to go, unless it's put into orbit, and there is VERY LITTLE coming down from space in the form of matter.

And yes........the earth IS a closed biosystem.

Right....Get proved that you're talking out your ass, then try to redefine terms.

How pedantic and predictable.

 

[Old Rocks]

No matter what political claims are made to the contrary - the question is not "IF" it is "how much."

Until some "scientitist" can submit some dissenting work to the rigors of peer review, the dissenters will have to satisfy themselves with op-ed "science" - Right next to the birthers, the truthers, and the alien abductees.

You'll pardon the rest of us if we are underwhelmed.

The best guess on how much is 3%....TOPS.

Speaking of underwhelming.

Damn, there you go again, spouting rubbish with a single citation to back it up. Where do you pull those nonsense numbers out of, your asshole?

At the start of the industrial age, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 280 ppm. Today, it is 390 ppm. In none of the interglacial periods in the past has it ever exceeded 300 ppm. In fact, the differance between and integlacial, 280 ppm, and an ice age, 180 ppm, is 100 ppm. We have already increased the atmospheric content more than that in 150 years. And that is a 40% increase, not a 3% increase.

 

[Zander]

I am giving up beans. I don't want to contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, I will only burp and fart into a plastic bag from now on. If I see a cow, I will try to put a bag on it's ass to capture the greenhouse gas that they emit. Those suckers fart all day! Maybe we could run a forklift with that gas?

 

[Old Rocks]

So, if the science is so sound and the evidence that man's industrial activities are the cause of gullible warming, why do the cargo cultists need to bullshit people, eh?

100.3 KTLK-FM, 100.3 K-TALK Minneapolis/St. Paul

The people who pulled that stunt, The Yes Men, are hoaxers far and wide. They don't really fall into any neat category, other than elaborate idiot performance artists

The Yes Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One thing they are good at is exposing the State Run Media for the incompetent fools they are. The media so wanted to believe that the Chamber of Commerce reversed itself to follow the Obama adminstration they didn't even bother to source the email they received from this group. Whats even better is when the real Chamber of Commerce director showed up and told the media this was all a hoax, they yelled at him and told him to shut up. This group demonstrates perfectly what partisan hacks the media are and the lengths they are willing to go to spread propaganda that favors their agenda.

And you are an idiot. I suppose Fox is state ran also? It was a funny hoax. However, the US Chamber of Commerce is not finding this so funny;

Companies quitting US Chamber over climate stance - Yahoo! News

ALBANY, N.Y. – A growing number of companies are quitting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its climate change policies.

The latest is a New York paper company. Mohawk Fine Paper says membership in an organization that has been critical of climate change legislation hurts its position as a business with a strong commitment to climate protection.

The business community is sharply divided on cap-and-trade climate bills before Congress.

The chamber has seen a number of companies resign their memberships over the issue. Among the companies leaving are utilities such as the Public Service Company of New Mexico and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and manufacturers such as Apple Inc.

 

[Old Rocks]

REAL scientists submit their work for peer review - political hacks submit op-ed pieces to political organs.

I'm STILL waiting.

REAL Scientist work for NASA and they say the place is getting cooler for the last three years and part of an overall cooling trend. I'd repost my sources from the last time you brought this up, but it did no good for you then, so I'll guess the same results for this time.

And you are still full of shit. NASA is quite emphatic that the warming is continueing, and it is dangerous to our society.


NASA - Global Warming
Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming


Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory

Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

Don't ask a question then answer it with your own insanity. It makes you look nuts.

Real nice answer when you just have had your ass handed to you. But continue your idiotic denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. It makes you look like such a credible source.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I am giving up beans. I don't want to contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, I will only burp and fart into a plastic bag from now on. If I see a cow, I will try to put a bag on it's ass to capture the greenhouse gas that they emit. Those suckers fart all day! Maybe we could run a forklift with that gas?

Actually, there are stockyards that harvest methane from their cow manure.

Who would have figured? Your acting like an idiot actually gleaned some knowledge!

Remember to keep your helmet on, we don't want you getting hurt ya cowardly pussy.

 

[edthecynic]

YOU LIE!

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | September 2009
Year-to-date (January-September)

The January-September 2009 map of temperature anomalies shows the presence of warmer-than-average conditions across much of the globe's surface area, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across parts of Canada, the northern contiguous United States, the southern oceans, and along the eastern North Pacific Ocean. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the year-to-date period ranked as the sixth warmest January-September period on record.

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

Don't ask a question then answer it with your own insanity. It makes you look nuts.

That's because I knew you wouldn't answer, and I was Right!
CON$ are sooooooooo predictable!

You provided the answer you wanted. What a joke you are.

You still have yet to answer my question. Don't dodge now.

And you didn't specify what base you wanted to use. I gave you the ONLY base that would change the chart. If you use the 20th century 100 year base, the chart will be almost identical.
So if you do not want to use the single year of 1998 as the base, what base do you want to use that you think will change the chart significantly?????
Don't dodge again!

 

[Oddball]

No matter what political claims are made to the contrary - the question is not "IF" it is "how much."

Until some "scientitist" can submit some dissenting work to the rigors of peer review, the dissenters will have to satisfy themselves with op-ed "science" - Right next to the birthers, the truthers, and the alien abductees.

You'll pardon the rest of us if we are underwhelmed.

The best guess on how much is 3%....TOPS.

Speaking of underwhelming.

Damn, there you go again, spouting rubbish with a single citation to back it up. Where do you pull those nonsense numbers out of, your asshole?

At the start of the industrial age, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 280 ppm. Today, it is 390 ppm. In none of the interglacial periods in the past has it ever exceeded 300 ppm. In fact, the differance between and integlacial, 280 ppm, and an ice age, 180 ppm, is 100 ppm. We have already increased the atmospheric content more than that in 150 years. And that is a 40% increase, not a 3% increase.

And there's virtually zero evidence to prove that increase is in fact primarily caused by mankind's activities.

Moreover, it has been conclusively proved that CO2 concentrations follow ambient temperature increases, not precede them, casting the whole notion that CO2 is the cause into the ash heap of junk science.

But you keep on throwing them vestal virgins into the volcano.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mani -- you are a master of understatement. The data is absolute crap. It varies from recent data collected being suspect, to data over 50 years old being completely suspect, to data over 100 years old being a steaming pile of crap. Then we have estimates related to ice core samples which might be compared to sausage (you don't wanna see how it's made or what goes into it).

When the "scientists" themselves claim that a variance of as little as ten feet in elevation has statistically significant impact on measuring temperature and then you realize that these sensors have to be replaced, upgraded, relocated or modified over time (especially sensors in place for over 100 years). But, there is no agreement in the scientific community at what level we should be placing the sensors. So, sensors may vary in height when refreshed.

Then there is the canopy problem. There is no agreement on whether sensors should be placed over or under tree canopies. There are changes to the local environment over time where the sensors are located. A once rural sensor could now be above a supermarket parking lot now. How is all this change accounted for in the stats?

yeah yeah - why not make up some more statistics to support your opinion.

Lemme see the peer-reviewed SCIENCE please ......

You subscribe to Nature right? You go look it up. It's all right there.

You could refer to the article published over the summer concerning a longitudinal study of ice cores indicating that CO2 is a trailing indicator of warming, not a leading indicator and it could trail by as much as 800 years. Just check your back issues of Nature, I'm not sure how you overlooked it since you are reading all these peer reviewed climate journals.

And in the same article in Nature, you could see the explanation for that. Also refusing to show your sources is just an indication of no good arguement.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.


Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.


Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).

The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south, retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007).

 

[garyd]

What the science says...
CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age.

No it isn't. That is merely an hypothesis crated by the warmers in an attempt to explain why the data don't gibe with their pet theory. You won't have any serious excess out gassing until the water starts to boil or at least simmer. Warmer water actually will hold more ionized particles than colder water.

 

[sitarro]

NBC is no longer a credible Media Outlet and i think more & more people are figuring that out.

Americans rate NBC higher in believability than Fox among broadcast outlets.

link?

 

[Si modo]

LOL. And if they made such a graph with a different base period?

And what base period would you like?
Let me guess, 1998.

That's because I knew you wouldn't answer, and I was Right!
CON$ are sooooooooo predictable!

You provided the answer you wanted. What a joke you are.

You still have yet to answer my question. Don't dodge now.

And you didn't specify what base you wanted to use. I gave you the ONLY base that would change the chart. If you use the 20th century 100 year base, the chart will be almost identical.
So if you do not want to use the single year of 1998 as the base, what base do you want to use that you think will change the chart significantly?????
Don't dodge again!

Gee, lemme think: If I wanted to make a point that anthropogenic CO2 was warming the Earth, I would choose some base period significant to the time when there was insignificant anthropogenic CO2.