How far have we already gone?

[code1211]

The ignorance you guys display at every turn is simply astounding.

Says the person who is taking a position opposed by almost every scientist on earth.

To my mind there have been two ways people can respond to news about climate change.

One has been to read a lot of news, particularly from sources we know and trust, and compare that with our own experience.

The other is to ridicule the science and go with blind faith.

I'm fine with you doing the latter.

There is a third approach.

Look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.

 

[code1211]

Trotting out that old meme are we? Here's the truth of that perticular bit of fiction you cling so stridently too.....


A survey was sent out to over 3000 scientists. They responded to some questions. The people doing the survey then, through some tortuous methodology, eliminated all but the climatologists (there were 79 of those) and even after all of that ridiculous culling THEY STILL COULDN'T get ALL of the climatologists to agree, hence the 74 of 79 climatologists has become the meme of 97% of the WORLDS scientists believe this crap.

That is called a lie on my world. What's it called on yours?

Seriously - that is your BEST response?!

You can find nothing at all to fault the science involved in creating the thousand or so major research projects conducted in the past decade?

Why not admit - you have no reason at all to conclude that the US Geological Society, British Academy of Sciences or US Meteorological Service are wrong, do you?

If you do have a reaon - let's see it.

The only research projects that matter contain un-revised data of which there is lttle and that show the increase in temperature and how it is caused by CO2.

Do you have a study that clearly shows the absolute cause-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature?

Nobody else has EVER produced one.

 

[code1211]

Crsuader Frank -

No, it's a model. A designed to help people understand science by making it simple.

I'd be delighted to post a dozen peer-reviewed pieces of science here, all of which were conducted by US PhD level researchers, and which have been impeccably conducted. Perhaps we could start with one concerning the collapse of Alaska glaciers.

Will you commit to reading it?

Warming does not indicate cause.

 

[code1211]

Crusader -

If you can establish that a report (conducted by a top US University, led by one of the best researchers in his field and involving field work on literally thousands of glaciers) is not science without even looking at it, then I won't bother posting it.

As far as I can tell, your position on Alaska glaciers is based entirely on faith and politics. Is that correct?

Speaking of Glaciers, here's one that formed over an individual who sat down to die on dry ground and was buried for 5000 years under a glacier that recently melted to reveal him.

Shows two things:
1. It's warmed up lately and
2. It's been this warm before.

According to you and your science, it probably also shows that the Ancient Egyptians had Hemis in their chariots.

Iceman - National Geographic Magazine

 

[code1211]

Westwall

what science?

Well, one site I looked at the other day lists 800 peer reviewed papers. All conducted by
noted, qualified scientists. I'm not aware of any accusations of fraud or poor science about any of them.

Of course you can troll through blogs trying to find evidence of poor science, and inevitably you'll come across one or two, but you won't find many, and probably none that involve Real Scientists. You seem to be using one or two poor examples ti discredit the entire field of scientific endevaour, which strikes me as being entirely countr-productive to understanding any issue.

Rather than rely on blind faith, why not be open minded ans read a few of the good pieces of research?

Has this planet ever been this warm before?

 

[code1211]

Walleyes claims to be a Geologists. So what do geologists state concerning AGW?
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.



Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the large effects on humans and ecosystems if greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

Rationale
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.7 °C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006).

Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since 1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved, recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no longer open to serious challenge.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.

And the irrefutable connection to the Cause of warming being the increase in CO2 is where?

 

[code1211]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Your climatologists apparently don't read history. there have been numerous plagues and climate related famines and deaths of entire civilizations like the Ancient Egyptians and others in desertified areas like the regions of Northern Africa.

It's easy to prove stuff if you ignore those facts that don't support your case.

 

[code1211]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Populations have grown rapidly only in the very recent portion of history and this has been the result of the blessings of the uses of fossil fuels.

 

[code1211]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

In the world of journalism, this is called "Burying the lead".

 

[code1211]

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Like all AGW Proponent pieces, this contains all of the predictions of dire consequence you could want and all of the results you need and all of the call to action you could ever desire and the blame placed squarely on the Oil Industry.

Also like every one of these pointless and empty pieces, there is no cause-effect to show the causation.

 

[code1211]

The public at large is changing their minds too. And it's not in your favour. .

A BBC study released last year showed that around 77% of people around the world believed human acitivity may be influencing the climate.

Of the 20 countries surveyed, the number of people accepting this rose in 19 countries. Only in the US is it falling. Why that might be is hard to say, but I suspect it is because only in the US is this a political topic. Outside the US it really is not political at all, and most conservative parties around the world are as clear about the need to address climate change as liberal ones are.

In countries clearly most affected by climate change - such as Spain, Australia and a lot of island nations - around 85%+ of people accept that human acitivity influences the climate.

Whichever way you cut it, the belief that human acitivity is in no way influencing the climate is becoming a fringe belief, and something that exists anywhere outside the lunatic fringe only in the US.

I can link this study, but I suspect again you won't have the stomach to read it.

Did the article survey the opinions of the people on the conclusion by CERN that Cosmic radiation has as much chance of affecting our climate as does CO2 and that this is demonstrable in a laboratory?

 

[wirebender]

And the irrefutable connection to the Cause of warming being the increase in CO2 is where?

Hell, I wouldn't even need an irrefutable connection. Some simple observable repeatable science performed in the spirit of the scientific method and the naming of a couple of physical laws that support and predict a greenhouse effect as claimed by warmists would go a long way towards convincing me. The problem is that right off the top of my head I can name 3 physical laws that state such a greenhouse effect is not possible and there isn't a shred of experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis. The most convincing experiment I have ever seen does little more than demonstrate the heat of compression.

It is simply astounding what people will accept as science if it fits their personal political leanings.

 

[meatheadmike]

Furthermore, the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.

Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change. To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

 

[westwall]

random people. people live for ~25000 days. 10,000 samples would give a reasonable range and enough data to synthesis an order from birth, growth to maturity, main line, and decline to death.

your mention of supernovas is interesting. the study of stars off the mainline led to exploring the reasons why they were different. regular novas are the measuring stick of the universe. blah,blah, blah.

I think you must be arguing just to argue. I thought Feynman was your hero. he had lots of examples of how aliens would figure out what was happening on earth even with incomplete information.

Yes, he did. And he gave cogent analogies with which to work. You've given none.

 

[westwall]

Where do the scientific organizations get their funding from? Where do the scientists who run the organizations get their funding from? Oh yeah, that's right....they get it from the taxpayers. They get their money based on how dire their predictions are. I wonder when they will actually get a prediction correct? So far they've had 30 year and 100 billion dollars to make some wonderful predictions but instead, we get Hansen and his prediction which is 300% off. But in olfrauds world that is considered pretty accurate.

And you clowns wonder why you're losing.

Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:

- University Scientists who "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?

OR

- Big Oil corporations who spread misinformation that Global Climate change is a hoax, so that they can keep the entire world dependent on Oil, hold back green energy, and maximize their profits?

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

This whole debate kind is similar to how the tobacco companies spread misinformation that cigarettes aren't bad for people all the way up until the 80s/90s.

One day? No, not one day. It took several years before they were able to figure out what a nice gravy train it would be. And since that time, they have been milking it for all it's worth.

And you need to look inot the money yourself. BIG OIL is HEAVILY INVESTED IN "GREEN" ENERGY. Just look up ENRON and the Kyoto protocol. I dare you.

 

[westwall]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

And STILL THE GODDAMNED PLANET ISN"T CONFORMING TO YOUR PREDICTIONS.

DAMNIT!

 

[westwall]

Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Of course not in a single day. This has evolved over decades with funding exponentially with the shrillness of the claims being made



That question is easy. Which group has money to burn and which group is always scampering about trying to wrest donations from alumni groups, sponsors, generous patrons etc?

The oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

Again, an easy question to answer. Even the most rabid of green groups only claim that 50 million has been spent by big oil in funding skeptics over the past decade. Contrast that to the 5 billion poured into the coffers of the warmists anually by the US government alone. Here is a report on money spent by the us from the GAO.



The idea that somehow skeptics are outspending warmists is absolutely laughable.

If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.

You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?

Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?

Who has spent the most money honey? That's right, the scientific academies and politicians allied with the media have FAR outspent ANY of the oil companies. You're not much of a thinker are you?

 

[code1211]

Furthermore, the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.

Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change. To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

 

[meatheadmike]

Of course not in a single day. This has evolved over decades with funding exponentially with the shrillness of the claims being made



That question is easy. Which group has money to burn and which group is always scampering about trying to wrest donations from alumni groups, sponsors, generous patrons etc?

The oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.



Again, an easy question to answer. Even the most rabid of green groups only claim that 50 million has been spent by big oil in funding skeptics over the past decade. Contrast that to the 5 billion poured into the coffers of the warmists anually by the US government alone. Here is a report on money spent by the us from the GAO.



The idea that somehow skeptics are outspending warmists is absolutely laughable.

If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.

You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?

Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?

Who has spent the most money honey? That's right, the scientific academies and politicians allied with the media have FAR outspent ANY of the oil companies. You're not much of a thinker are you?

Last time I checked Big Oil was investing less than 1 percent of their profits in renewable energy, therefore I hardly think you can conclude Big Oil being “heavily invested in renewable energy”. I think we both know where their profits are coming from and where their priorities lie.

Again, I think it should come as no surprise that the scientific academies whose sole purpose is researching Global warming have spent more money in Global Warming research than Oil companies, who shouldn’t have any business spending money on this topic at all. The fact that Oil companies are spending any money on this matter at all should be your red flag.

 

[meatheadmike]

Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change. To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.

Your entire argument is an attack on the science behind global warming (you called it pseudoscience many times). Therefore attacking an organization that does not carry out its own original research or monitor climate change is a straw man fallacy and “laughable”.

As for your other post, you clearly are regurgitating talking points from the conservative media and are showing that it is indeed you do not have much “intellectual wattage” invested in your position. The greenhouse effect does NOT violate the Second Law of thermo dynamics because planet earth is not in a closed energy system and the heat source is a constant influx of energy from the sun. If the sun was somehow turned off then there would be no greenhouse effect, but the sun is always on.

To discuss the causes of global warming is one thing, but to imply that a greenhouse effect does not exist is beyond ignorant. How is it possible that the average surface temperature on Venus is hotter than Mercury when Mercury is much closer to the sun? Which of those two planets has a CO2 rich atmosphere and which one doesn’t?

I cannot post any links because I am a new member, but if you want a sources, a simple Google search on these topics should give you a sufficient starting point. Based on your responses I doubt that you possess an open mind to look at any information from an unbiased point of view, or that you would even read anything for that matter. I think you are just here to post insults to those who you don’t agree with, and make yourself feel like an internet tough guy rather than have an intelligent open-minded discussion on this topic.

There are various reasons to doubts that AGW is a valid conclusion.

Is there a proof that you would care to present that CO2 is prime driver of climate?

Ok as I alluded to earlier, let’s make some observations about planets Mercury and Venus and then draw some conclusions.
- Venus is nearly twice the distance from the sun than Mercury is.
- Venus is completely covered in clouds which reflect 90% of the sun’s light into outer space, preventing most of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface.

Both of these things would lead one to assume that the surface temperature on Venus should be much cooler than that of Mercury. Yet somehow Venus’s average surface temperature is hotter...

Now let’s look at their CO2. Venus has a very thick atmosphere that consists of 96.5% CO2 while Mercury’s atmosphere is very weak and CO2 is only found in tiny trace amounts.

Based on these simple observations it should be obvious that the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is acting as a greenhouse gas and trapping heat on the surface of the planet. This explains why the surface of Venus is hotter than Mercury, and illustrates how CO2 can be a driving force in climate.

You accused me of not being a thinker, but I’d like you to think about what I stated objectively, crosscheck my facts if you don’t believe me, and draw your own unbiased conclusions.

Then if you’d like to offer another explanation for why the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury I am willing to hear it.