North America Before Global Warming

[Richard-H]

THAT is true. The fact that there might be "other" causes, standing alone, certainly does not rule out additional causation including man-made causes.

However, the scientific "evidence" that MIGHT show that there is some diabolical connection between the increase in carbon emissions in our atmosphere and ANY change in our global climate is virtually non-existent. The science has been undermined by poor data, poor data collection, deliberate distortions in HOW data is gathered, piss-poor application of scientific method, deliberately altered data, bad math, etc., etc., etc.

No. That's pretty much a myth perpetrated by the wingnuts. Global Warming and it's relation to carbon emissions has been studied for over a hundred years, by thousands of scientists. It has been supported by every major scientific institution throughout the world for quite some time - including NASA.

Not only has the empirical data shown that there is a direct relationship between carbon emmissions and the rate of global warming, but to anyone who is at all educated in the topic could tell you that increased carbon content in the atmosphere causing an increase in the heat held by the atmosphere is exactly what would be expected.

The 'bad' math that is alluded to by the wingnuts was just one memo refering to a mathematical trick - which was just a mathematic shortcut - still a totally valid mathematical method.

Denying Global Warming is just plain silly. It's only being attacked becuase a bunch of industrialists don't want to be forced into replacing their power plants with the industrial equivalent of 'Energy Star' efficient power plants.

I really wish that all you wingnuts would stop allowing yourselves to be lead around by the nose by anyone that has a few bucks in their pockets.

No, the bad math refers to a simple calculation thet the Royal Society made that gives a incorrect residence time for CO2. The only problem is they did it wrong. You might want to look at some other sources than the lefty wingnut sites that perpetually posit the exact same thing with no evidence to support it.


As far as the money goes I suggest you look at the "green" money being invested that will only come to fruition if the governements pass onerous laws that cripple the econmies of the free world.
Then again you may just wish to keep your head in the sand, the choice is yours.

So even if what you say is true, one miscalculation found at the Royal Soceity negates thousands of correct calculations which have been done by thousands of scientists all over the world for the past hundred years? At scientific institutions, like the one I work at, calculations are done in the thousands every day and you think that becuase some industrial goons were able to find one questionable calculation at one institute, all else is wrong?

Not very bright!

As far as 'crippling the economies of the free world':

You've got to be kidding! They said the same thing about the American chemical industry after the Love Canal decision. "Oh, how can we compete if we can't poison everyone that lives near our plants!"

Guess what, the Chemical Industry, which is just aboiut the most regulated and restricted industry in the world, changed it's way of operating, learned to abide by the new regulations and has become more profitable than ever.

Industrialists may whine, becuase they're too cheap to put up the bucks to transform their power plants, but if we can ever get cap & trade passed, these idiots are going to find that the new 'Green' energy plants not only save the environment, but lower their operating costs as well.

 

[westwall]

Yes, folks we all know that there are natural changes in the earth's temperature over time - usually in periods ranging from between one thousand to ten thousand years. Giving time for primitives to migrate.

One probable cause for the 10 thousand year cycles in the natural undulation of earth's orbit.

We also know that a moderate amount of global warming is more likely to have a positive effect on the environment - more arable land. Furthermore, we know that even small global cooling has caused extreme negative effects on civilizations - see the history channel documentary on 'The little Ice Age'.

However, 'Global Warming' caused by carbon emmissions is a very different thing:

First - It is measurable, predictable and if it weren't for the idiots that deny it, it would be controllable.

Second - As it is measureable and predictable, it is known that it will avalanche into a very rapid and beyond critical environmental disaster - meaning that millions of people are likely to die and that civilzation will not be able to respond fast enough.

Look, global warming does not just mean a rise in the sea levels. As the atmosphere warms it's capacity to hold water will increase. That means more frequent and more intense violent storms - we'll see catagory 6,7 and 8 hurricanes. They'll be hellatious in-land flooding. Lush tropical and sub-tropical lands will turn to deserts.

Of course there is a bright side - the Canadians and Russians are already talking about the new economic trade zone that will open up where the Arctic ice once was.

But, come on, tell me the truth - this is all a vast right wing conspiracy to accelerate global warming while ya all buy up Arctic front land up in Canada, right?

Really? Measurable? Predictable? Please show the class examples of what you just posted.

Exactly which part of a thermometer is it that you don't understand?

Look moron (and I mean that quite sincerely), it really isn't rocket science. Thousands of people all over the world measure something called the T-E-M-P-E-R-A-T-U-R-E every day. That means 'how hot it is outside'.

These people use a mystical process called A-V-E-R-A-G-I-N-G that tell them how hot the entire world is.

Other people take something called A-I-R S-A-M-P-L-E-S from all over the world everyday.

The people that take the air samples have magic ways of measuring the carbon content in the air samples.

All of these people have been doing this everyday for over a hundred years.

Then the people who measure the temperature and the people who measure the carbon content get together and compare their D-A-T-A (That means numbers).

And guess what they've found?

There's a direct relationship between the amount of carbon in the air and the rate of increase in the heat contained in the atmosphere. No kidding!

Then they use more magic called M-A-T-H-E-M-A-T-I-C-S and a process called E-X-T-R-A-P-O-L-A-T-I-O-N predict the heat contained in the atmosphere in the future.

These are the same people that have accurately predicted things like how much wieght the bridges you drive over will hold, or the fact that when you turn your key in your ignition and press the accelerator you engine will go varoom-varoom.

These are the same people that can predict whether your refrigerator will keep your food cold or that when you follow their rules you can actually type messages to other people over something called the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T.

Just about everything you depend on for your very survival is based on their ability to predict. You believe them each and everyday in everything you do. Why suddenly stop when they predict global warming?

Because there are some wealthy industrialists paying to brainwash you into believing otherwise?

Look, you can google 'Global Warming', you can research it on wikipedia, you can turn off your stupid reality T.V. shows and watch discovery channel. The evidence is there, but you'll have to take your head out of your ass first to see it.

Moron? That's the best you can do? Well looky here junior. There's a thing called falsification of data. There's another thing called knowingly disemenating false data. I suggest you pull your tiny little head out of your sphincter and try some real research.

You must be olfrauds son.

Climate Change Dispatch - US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal ? NOAA Disgraced

 

[westwall]

No. That's pretty much a myth perpetrated by the wingnuts. Global Warming and it's relation to carbon emissions has been studied for over a hundred years, by thousands of scientists. It has been supported by every major scientific institution throughout the world for quite some time - including NASA.

Not only has the empirical data shown that there is a direct relationship between carbon emmissions and the rate of global warming, but to anyone who is at all educated in the topic could tell you that increased carbon content in the atmosphere causing an increase in the heat held by the atmosphere is exactly what would be expected.

The 'bad' math that is alluded to by the wingnuts was just one memo refering to a mathematical trick - which was just a mathematic shortcut - still a totally valid mathematical method.

Denying Global Warming is just plain silly. It's only being attacked becuase a bunch of industrialists don't want to be forced into replacing their power plants with the industrial equivalent of 'Energy Star' efficient power plants.

I really wish that all you wingnuts would stop allowing yourselves to be lead around by the nose by anyone that has a few bucks in their pockets.

No, the bad math refers to a simple calculation thet the Royal Society made that gives a incorrect residence time for CO2. The only problem is they did it wrong. You might want to look at some other sources than the lefty wingnut sites that perpetually posit the exact same thing with no evidence to support it.


As far as the money goes I suggest you look at the "green" money being invested that will only come to fruition if the governements pass onerous laws that cripple the econmies of the free world.
Then again you may just wish to keep your head in the sand, the choice is yours.

So even if what you say is true, one miscalculation found at the Royal Soceity negates thousands of correct calculations which have been done by thousands of scientists all over the world for the past hundred years? At scientific institutions, like the one I work at, calculations are done in the thousands every day and you think that becuase some industrial goons were able to find one questionable calculation at one institute, all else is wrong?

Not very bright!

As far as 'crippling the economies of the free world':

You've got to be kidding! They said the same thing about the American chemical industry after the Love Canal decision. "Oh, how can we compete if we can't poison everyone that lives near our plants!"

Guess what, the Chemical Industry, which is just aboiut the most regulated and restricted industry in the world, changed it's way of operating, learned to abide by the new regulations and has become more profitable than ever.

Industrialists may whine, becuase they're too cheap to put up the bucks to transform their power plants, but if we can ever get cap & trade passed, these idiots are going to find that the new 'Green' energy plants not only save the environment, but lower their operating costs as well.

Well here's a article by one of your alarmist warmer buddies and while he still thinks that he is right he has to acknowledge that mitigating the effects of climate change are more than they are worth. The estimated cost of "globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption" is 1.8 percent of GDP while the cost to mitigate it is estimated at 2.0 percentof GDP. And after all of that money wasted the net result is MAYBE a .5 degree change in temperature, maybe.

The real world (which you clearly know nothing about) rewards accuracy and punishes mistakes. And how come your side has to keep changing the name? Methinks that perhaps they are wrong and are trying to rebrand the BS so they can fool the gullible (yourself for instance) into signing over their wealth so that the elite can live high on the hog.

You blabber on about industrialists and ignore the fact that Goldman Sachs (a company which produces nothing) stands to make over a trillion dollars if Cap and Trade gets passed.
So, tell me again how those industrialists are going to make a trillion dollars on roughly a 6 to 10 percent profit margin?

You need to take a lot more classes before you pop your nose back in here junior....a lot more.


http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N45/yost.html

 

[Liability]

All this really shows is Man is not the Sole cause. It does not rule out that our contributions speed up the process.

THAT is true. The fact that there might be "other" causes, standing alone, certainly does not rule out additional causation including man-made causes.

However, the scientific "evidence" that MIGHT show that there is some diabolical connection between the increase in carbon emissions in our atmosphere and ANY change in our global climate is virtually non-existent. The science has been undermined by poor data, poor data collection, deliberate distortions in HOW data is gathered, piss-poor application of scientific method, deliberately altered data, bad math, etc., etc., etc.

No. That's pretty much a myth perpetrated by the wingnuts. Global Warming and it's relation to carbon emissions has been studied for over a hundred years, by thousands of scientists. It has been supported by every major scientific institution throughout the world for quite some time - including NASA.

Not only has the empirical data shown that there is a direct relationship between carbon emmissions and the rate of global warming, but to anyone who is at all educated in the topic could tell you that increased carbon content in the atmosphere causing an increase in the heat held by the atmosphere is exactly what would be expected.

The 'bad' math that is alluded to by the wingnuts was just one memo refering to a mathematical trick - which was just a mathematic shortcut - still a totally valid mathematical method.

Denying Global Warming is just plain silly. It's only being attacked becuase a bunch of industrialists don't want to be forced into replacing their power plants with the industrial equivalent of 'Energy Star' efficient power plants.

I really wish that all you wingnuts would stop allowing yourselves to be lead around by the nose by anyone that has a few bucks in their pockets.

No. It is not a myth at all. The CLAIM that there IS (definitively) a human-based CAUSE for global warming (sorry, I of course MEANT to use the proper new politically correct terminology: global climate change) is absolutely unproved.

A real myth is that science has reached a "consensus" on the matter (as though science was governed by some democratic voting process).

The bigger myth is that valid science has yet been able to reach any such AGW conclusion.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, folks we all know that there are natural changes in the earth's temperature over time - usually in periods ranging from between one thousand to ten thousand years. Giving time for primitives to migrate.

One probable cause for the 10 thousand year cycles in the natural undulation of earth's orbit.

We also know that a moderate amount of global warming is more likely to have a positive effect on the environment - more arable land. Furthermore, we know that even small global cooling has caused extreme negative effects on civilizations - see the history channel documentary on 'The little Ice Age'.

However, 'Global Warming' caused by carbon emmissions is a very different thing:

First - It is measurable, predictable and if it weren't for the idiots that deny it, it would be controllable.

Second - As it is measureable and predictable, it is known that it will avalanche into a very rapid and beyond critical environmental disaster - meaning that millions of people are likely to die and that civilzation will not be able to respond fast enough.

Look, global warming does not just mean a rise in the sea levels. As the atmosphere warms it's capacity to hold water will increase. That means more frequent and more intense violent storms - we'll see catagory 6,7 and 8 hurricanes. They'll be hellatious in-land flooding. Lush tropical and sub-tropical lands will turn to deserts.

Of course there is a bright side - the Canadians and Russians are already talking about the new economic trade zone that will open up where the Arctic ice once was.

But, come on, tell me the truth - this is all a vast right wing conspiracy to accelerate global warming while ya all buy up Arctic front land up in Canada, right?

For a category 6, 7 or 8 hurricanes, first off they would have to create a new scale. Secondly, I think the only things that could make winds of those speeds with be either an asteroid hit of such magnitude that it split the world in half, or a nuclear explosion that does the same.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine the Warmers circa 10,000 BC railing against the use of fire and domesticated animals in North America because it was obviously making the glaciers retreat?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, here we have the peanut gallery crowd denying all that the real scientists have found.

Not a single Scientific Society denys AGW. Every Scientific Academy of Science in the industrial nations states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every major University in the world.

And where was the wonderful article stating that the Royal Society had made a major error in their math published? Science? NO Nature? NO. In the Canada Free Press, the right wing equivelant of the National Enquierer. Serious scientific articles are published in peer reviewed journals, not weekly tabloids.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, here we have the peanut gallery crowd denying all that the real scientists have found.

Not a single Scientific Society denys AGW. Every Scientific Academy of Science in the industrial nations states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every major University in the world.

And where was the wonderful article stating that the Royal Society had made a major error in their math published? Science? NO Nature? NO. In the Canada Free Press, the right wing equivelant of the National Enquierer. Serious scientific articles are published in peer reviewed journals, not weekly tabloids.

This is the group you can trust

It's time to play

Wheel
of
Climate
Change

Oh wait, I just got word from our sponsors, we're now

Wheel
of
Climate
Disruption​

Sponsored by Goldman Sachs Carbon Credits

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Walleyes, that certainly tells us where you are coming from. The suffer as they must. Real good slogan for Conservatives.

Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?Very little, if anything at all.

As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x, the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.

H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem *— neat, plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change.

Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, carbon emissions are a negative externality, and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a global public good. These types of problems have been well-studied by economists, and solutions to them are known. Unfortunately, these solutions require a sovereign power to enact them, and in this world there is no global power to enforce economically optimal solutions, no benevolent dictator, no organ of international government capable of superceding national sovereignty and its attendant self-interest. The international system is not cooperative — it is best defined as anarchic and follows the Thucydidean maxim: the strong do as they can... the weak suffer as they must.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What did mankind do to cause the Wisconsin De-glaciation?

Invention of fire?

Domestication of chickens?

Hunting mammoth?

 

[editec]

Like what part of the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story didn't our chum, Crusader Frank, not entirely understand, class?

Was it that he doesn't understand that the opposite of too hot is too cold, or is it that he doesn't understand the concept of "just right"?

 

[Liability]

Like what part of the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story didn't our chum, Crusader Frank, not entirely understand, class?

Was it that he doesn't understand that the opposite of too hot is too cold, or is it that he doesn't understand the concept of "just right"?

WTF are you talking about?

Challenging as unscientific the completely unproved notion that humankind is responsible for global warming -- err -- global climate change has nothing to do with the proposition that we are EITHER too cold OR too hot. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how you or anybody else can determine whether or not we are "just right," for that matter.

 

[IanC]

Well, Walleyes, that certainly tells us where you are coming from. The suffer as they must. Real good slogan for Conservatives.

Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?Very little, if anything at all.

As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x, the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.

H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem *— neat, plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change.

Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, carbon emissions are a negative externality, and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a global public good. These types of problems have been well-studied by economists, and solutions to them are known. Unfortunately, these solutions require a sovereign power to enact them, and in this world there is no global power to enforce economically optimal solutions, no benevolent dictator, no organ of international government capable of superceding national sovereignty and its attendant self-interest. The international system is not cooperative — it is best defined as anarchic and follows the Thucydidean maxim: the strong do as they can... the weak suffer as they must.

Do you understand the concept of 'tradgedy of the commons'? and how it will relate to ameliorating CO2 emmissions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like what part of the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story didn't our chum, Crusader Frank, not entirely understand, class?

Was it that he doesn't understand that the opposite of too hot is too cold, or is it that he doesn't understand the concept of "just right"?

There has never been and never will be "Just right" there are too many variable that are always, well, varying.

Clue: Get one today

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, Walleyes, that certainly tells us where you are coming from. The suffer as they must. Real good slogan for Conservatives.

Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?Very little, if anything at all.

As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x, the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.

H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem *— neat, plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change.

Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, carbon emissions are a negative externality, and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a global public good. These types of problems have been well-studied by economists, and solutions to them are known. Unfortunately, these solutions require a sovereign power to enact them, and in this world there is no global power to enforce economically optimal solutions, no benevolent dictator, no organ of international government capable of superceding national sovereignty and its attendant self-interest. The international system is not cooperative — it is best defined as anarchic and follows the Thucydidean maxim: the strong do as they can... the weak suffer as they must.

How did Mankind do that? The invention of Fire? Are SUV's 15,000 years old?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming, a Fairy Tale

Once upon a time, about 15,000 years ago, everything north of the Ohio River was under 6 miles of ice.

Then the ice started melting, nobody knows why, it just happened.

The glaciers retreated and retreated and retreated. Then, about 200 years ago Earth was magically in perfect balance!

Yes Earth was in the balance.

Then bad, bad men burn coal to make steel and railroads, eeeeek!

Earht's precious balanced, pristine lungs started choking on the soot. Cough cough! And in her anger, Earth started getting a fever! Earth stopped being in balance.

It's an Inconvenient Truth that Cat 5 hurricanes spouted up in the South Atlantic! Ekkk! That's how angry Earth was at the bad bad men who burned coal. "I'm going to blow a gust of wind at you you bad, bad men", said Planet Earth.

The more coal they burned, the greater Earth's fever became, even the ice on her forehead could not cool her down and the melting started all over again! Ekkkk!

 

[westwall]

Well, here we have the peanut gallery crowd denying all that the real scientists have found.

Not a single Scientific Society denys AGW. Every Scientific Academy of Science in the industrial nations states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every major University in the world.

And where was the wonderful article stating that the Royal Society had made a major error in their math published? Science? NO Nature? NO. In the Canada Free Press, the right wing equivelant of the National Enquierer. Serious scientific articles are published in peer reviewed journals, not weekly tabloids.

Every politically connected and dependant on their nice cash grants leadership of said scientific organizations yes, but as we are seeing more and more the memberships are revolting against the political dogma and want a return to real science.

This is a prediction olfraud. Just like you were wrong about what the RS was going to do, you will be wrong about this as well. Once the scientists get pissed off they do the right thing, it's just hard to get them pissed off. Well, guess what? You clowns finally pissed them off.

 

[westwall]

Well, Walleyes, that certainly tells us where you are coming from. The suffer as they must. Real good slogan for Conservatives.

Global warming not worth the fight - The Tech

Global warming is real. It is predominantly anthropogenic. Left unchecked, it will likely warm the earth by 3-7 C by the end of the century. What should the United States do about it?Very little, if anything at all.

As economists, we are inclined to take the vantage point of the benevolent dictator, that omnific individual with his hands upon all of the policy levers available to the state. When placed in such a position, the question of how to respond to global warming is answered by performing a simple comparison: does x, the cost of optimally mitigating carbon emissions, exceed y, the benefit of that carbon mitigation? Where the answer is yes, the global carbon mitigation effort remains rightfully nascent, where the answer is no, it springs up and becomes law with a just and sudden force.

H.L. Mencken once wrote, “Explanations exist; they have existed for all times, for there is always an well-known solution to every human problem *— neat, plausible, and wrong.” Such is the economist’s explanation of climate change.

Global warming is a tragedy of the commons, carbon emissions are a negative externality, and reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a global public good. These types of problems have been well-studied by economists, and solutions to them are known. Unfortunately, these solutions require a sovereign power to enact them, and in this world there is no global power to enforce economically optimal solutions, no benevolent dictator, no organ of international government capable of superceding national sovereignty and its attendant self-interest. The international system is not cooperative — it is best defined as anarchic and follows the Thucydidean maxim: the strong do as they can... the weak suffer as they must.

No, clown. That is what you fools beleive. The religion of Climatism.

 

[westwall]

Like what part of the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story didn't our chum, Crusader Frank, not entirely understand, class?

Was it that he doesn't understand that the opposite of too hot is too cold, or is it that he doesn't understand the concept of "just right"?

I think you don't understand that the world is an open system...not a walled off room that can be controlled. The Earth is NEVER just right. Anyone who believes that exhibits a complete lack of understanding of the natural world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ack! that glacier is crushing my house!

It's the great CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster, Charlie Brown!