The Sky is Falling...!! and you global warming supporters..Ha..ha..ha....!

[RollingThunder]

The sky is falling… sort of. Over the last 10 years, the height of clouds has been shrinking, according to new research.

it could have an important effect on global climate change.
Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.


Shrinking Sky! Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds | Atmospheric Science & Climate Change | Cloud Formation & Height | LiveScience

This whole idiotic thread is officially dead because it was debunked by 'theliq' a long time ago in post #23. Why is this zombie thread still staggering along? Just so the denier cultists can demonstrate how extremely retarded and ignorant they are? The OP is nonsense based on a total misunderstanding of the meaning of the scientific report being cited. Give it up, retards, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well this New Zealand study is true BUT what you forgot to mention IS, that the high atmosphere CLOUDS are disappearing at a rapid rate (or should I say lowering and a % disappearing). IT IS THE EARTHS RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING you dumb ass so the joke is on YOU....the reason blows out clearly your theory that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE.....

You try to insult my mental reasoning with THIS?? You've got the vocabulary and sentence structure of a 4th grader. A FLUNKING 4th grader.

LOL....and you obviously have the mental reasoning abilities of 2nd grader. A DEAD 2nd grader.

Mean while, the climate warms, the weather patterns change radically, the polar ice disappears . I have seen the changes in the last twenty + years, and somebody’s youthful skepticism is sounding a little hollow.

Strange, I've lived during those same 20 years and I haven't noticed any change whatsoever.

But that is because you are a total retard and you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Pretty obvious, really.

Climate change will cause extremes; where I live the EXTREMES have been noticeable within the last few years.

sorry for the criticism, but what a stupid, nonsensical and off-point comment. climate change will cause extremes. unless it doesnt.

Actually, it is your posts that are stupid, nonsensical and usually off-point. Anthropogenic global warming has produced changes in climate patterns and water vapor levels that are, in fact, causing more extreme weather events. Scientists have tracked this increase and so have the insurance companies.

Climate Change Is Getting Expensive For The Insurance Industry
As natural disasters increase, insurance companies are paying out more and more.
(excerpts)
No, it's not your imagination; extreme weather events are becoming more common. It's hard to pinpoint climate change as the culprit on any single event, but it's increasingly difficult to ignore the increase in death and destruction caused by natural disasters. And if anyone knows about that, it's the insurance industry, which has to pay every time a new natural disaster hits. On a call with members of the Union of Concerned Scientists last week, one insurance executive estimated that economic losses from natural disasters have climbed from an average of $25 billion each year during the 1980s to $130 billion annually this past decade.

IPCC Report Confirms What Businesses Already Know: Extreme Weather & Climate Change Has Economic Impacts
Forbes
11/23/2011
(excerpts)
...the increasingly rock solid research confirming that climate change is real and that more extreme weather is on the way unless we dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a Special Report examining the link between extreme weather events and climate change. It found that climate change is indeed responsible for the increased frequency of pronounced heat waves, heavy rainfall events and other erratic and destructive weather events. Beyond the human and ecological toll, extreme weather reaps huge economic costs. 2011 has been one of the most costly years on record for extreme weather events in the U.S. with more billion-dollar events than ever before. Drought and wildfire in the Southwest and Southern Plains, for example, cost more than $9 billion in direct damages to cattle, agriculture and infrastructure.

do you mean some sort of human caused climate change? the industrial age has been going on for quite a while so I take it you are just against anything that man does.

What an idiotic assumption! Being against pollution and the foolish increase in greenhouse gas levels is not at all the same thing as being "against anything that man does". Your reasoning ability seems very moronic. The industrial age has indeed "been going on for quite a while" and it has increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% which has caused global warming and climate changes

are you saying that we should go back to pre-industrial civilization? where would that leave most of the 6,000,000,000 people on the planet? are you really willing to give up your car, television and supermarket for some noble cause that would make your life cold, hard and short?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....When exactly did your brain finally die? Where do you get this kind of idiotic nonsense? Nobody anywhere is saying that "we should go back to pre-industrial civilization". Apparently you're too freaking stupid to recognize a straw-man argument even when you're trying to parrot one, but the rest of us aren't. Switching over to non-polluting, non-carbon emitting energy sources will improve our world, not take it back into the Dark Ages, nitwit.

back to the OP. it appears that the cloud level is changing, in a way that reduces the recent warming. can you say negative feedback?.

Actually the article cited in the OP doesn't say that at all. The article says that an analysis of 10 years of some satellite data found that "global average cloud height decreased by around 1 percent over the decade, a distance of 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.The Terra satellite is set to continue collecting data through the rest of this decade, which will help determine whether or not the cloud lowering is a consistent trend. And no one fully understands how clouds will respond to a warming climate. Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases." A possible drop in average cloud levels of only 100 feet or so in an atmosphere that is, in terms of cloud formation, about a 100,000 feet deep is actually pretty insignificant. Only if this possible trend continues and amplifies would it have any possible effect on global warming and even that would almost certainly be rather minimal compared to the effects of the ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

how many other negative feedbacks are out there that we dont know about?

LOLOLOLOL.....talk about 'grasping at straws'....LOLOL...this whole field of scientific study regarding AGW/CC has been intensely investigated by tens of thousands of scientists for many decades now and no previously unnoticed "other negative feedbacks" have been found so far....which doesn't, of course, prove that there aren't any but it does make their existence rather improbable.

why do people seem to want, seem to need the crazy IPCC positive feedback to be right so that we can blame mankind's wickedness.

What an idiotic comment! No one "needs" or "wants" the scientific studies of the positive feedbacks in the physics of global warming "to be right". They simply are correct and based on sound science. This has nothing to do with some idiocy about "mankind's wickedness". Where do you get that crap? This has to do with the choices in energy sources mankind made a long time ago. Unfortunately for us now, the path we've gone down in developing the use of fossil fuels was begun in ignorance of the long term consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (up 40% so far and still rising fast) by burning off millions of years of naturally sequestered CO2 (i.e.- fossil fuels) in only a few centuries.

remember the Gulf oil spill? worst manmade disaster ever. seems like mother nature pretty much took care of it despite all the exaggerated predictions of decades of doom.

Just out of curiosity, just how did you get your head that far up your ass?

Long-term effects of Gulf oil spill on shrimp, other species is still unknown
January 29, 2012
(excerpts)
....the long-term effects on fish species from that oil, and the chemicals used to fight it, are still largely unknown. Possible effects on the growth and mortality of Gulf shrimp could come from a variety of factors, including alterations in the food they eat or the species who prey on them, changes in the marsh they inhabit, or changes in their own biology. Hanging ominously over the Gulf studies is the specter of the collapse of the Pacific herring fishery in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1993, four years after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. The federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment, or NRDA, is looking at some of the BP spill's potential effect on shrimp. BP has pledged to spend $1 billion on "early restoration" projects, with Louisiana in line to get $200 million, but the company and other parties responsible for the spill may eventually have to spend as much as $20 billion on natural resource projects.

 

[skookerasbil]

The sky is falling… sort of. Over the last 10 years, the height of clouds has been shrinking, according to new research.

it could have an important effect on global climate change.
Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.


Shrinking Sky! Cloud Tops Dropping Closer to Earth, NASA Satellite Finds | Atmospheric Science & Climate Change | Cloud Formation & Height | LiveScience

This whole idiotic thread is officially dead because it was debunked by 'theliq' a long time ago in post #23. Why is this zombie thread still staggering along? Just so the denier cultists can demonstrate how extremely retarded and ignorant they are? The OP is nonsense based on a total misunderstanding of the meaning of the scientific report being cited. Give it up, retards, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well this New Zealand study is true BUT what you forgot to mention IS, that the high atmosphere CLOUDS are disappearing at a rapid rate (or should I say lowering and a % disappearing). IT IS THE EARTHS RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING you dumb ass so the joke is on YOU....the reason blows out clearly your theory that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE.....

LOL....and you obviously have the mental reasoning abilities of 2nd grader. A DEAD 2nd grader.





But that is because you are a total retard and you have your head jammed so far up your ass. Pretty obvious, really.






Actually, it is your posts that are stupid, nonsensical and usually off-point. Anthropogenic global warming has produced changes in climate patterns and water vapor levels that are, in fact, causing more extreme weather events. Scientists have tracked this increase and so have the insurance companies.

Climate Change Is Getting Expensive For The Insurance Industry
As natural disasters increase, insurance companies are paying out more and more.
(excerpts)
No, it's not your imagination; extreme weather events are becoming more common. It's hard to pinpoint climate change as the culprit on any single event, but it's increasingly difficult to ignore the increase in death and destruction caused by natural disasters. And if anyone knows about that, it's the insurance industry, which has to pay every time a new natural disaster hits. On a call with members of the Union of Concerned Scientists last week, one insurance executive estimated that economic losses from natural disasters have climbed from an average of $25 billion each year during the 1980s to $130 billion annually this past decade.

IPCC Report Confirms What Businesses Already Know: Extreme Weather & Climate Change Has Economic Impacts
Forbes
11/23/2011
(excerpts)
...the increasingly rock solid research confirming that climate change is real and that more extreme weather is on the way unless we dramatically reduce carbon pollution. Just last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a Special Report examining the link between extreme weather events and climate change. It found that climate change is indeed responsible for the increased frequency of pronounced heat waves, heavy rainfall events and other erratic and destructive weather events. Beyond the human and ecological toll, extreme weather reaps huge economic costs. 2011 has been one of the most costly years on record for extreme weather events in the U.S. with more billion-dollar events than ever before. Drought and wildfire in the Southwest and Southern Plains, for example, cost more than $9 billion in direct damages to cattle, agriculture and infrastructure.






What an idiotic assumption! Being against pollution and the foolish increase in greenhouse gas levels is not at all the same thing as being "against anything that man does". Your reasoning ability seems very moronic. The industrial age has indeed "been going on for quite a while" and it has increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% which has caused global warming and climate changes




LOLOLOLOLOLOL....When exactly did your brain finally die? Where do you get this kind of idiotic nonsense? Nobody anywhere is saying that "we should go back to pre-industrial civilization". Apparently you're too freaking stupid to recognize a straw-man argument even when you're trying to parrot one, but the rest of us aren't. Switching over to non-polluting, non-carbon emitting energy sources will improve our world, not take it back into the Dark Ages, nitwit.






Actually the article cited in the OP doesn't say that at all. The article says that an analysis of 10 years of some satellite data found that "global average cloud height decreased by around 1 percent over the decade, a distance of 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction stemmed from fewer clouds forming at very high altitudes.The Terra satellite is set to continue collecting data through the rest of this decade, which will help determine whether or not the cloud lowering is a consistent trend. And no one fully understands how clouds will respond to a warming climate. Clouds that are lower in the atmosphere would allow Earth to cool more efficiently, potentially offsetting some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases." A possible drop in average cloud levels of only 100 feet or so in an atmosphere that is, in terms of cloud formation, about a 100,000 feet deep is actually pretty insignificant. Only if this possible trend continues and amplifies would it have any possible effect on global warming and even that would almost certainly be rather minimal compared to the effects of the ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases.





LOLOLOLOL.....talk about 'grasping at straws'....LOLOL...this whole field of scientific study regarding AGW/CC has been intensely investigated by tens of thousands of scientists for many decades now and no previously unnoticed "other negative feedbacks" have been found so far....which doesn't, of course, prove that there aren't any but it does make their existence rather improbable.

why do people seem to want, seem to need the crazy IPCC positive feedback to be right so that we can blame mankind's wickedness.

What an idiotic comment! No one "needs" or "wants" the scientific studies of the positive feedbacks in the physics of global warming "to be right". They simply are correct and based on sound science. This has nothing to do with some idiocy about "mankind's wickedness". Where do you get that crap? This has to do with the choices in energy sources mankind made a long time ago. Unfortunately for us now, the path we've gone down in developing the use of fossil fuels was begun in ignorance of the long term consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (up 40% so far and still rising fast) by burning off millions of years of naturally sequestered CO2 (i.e.- fossil fuels) in only a few centuries.

remember the Gulf oil spill? worst manmade disaster ever. seems like mother nature pretty much took care of it despite all the exaggerated predictions of decades of doom.

Just out of curiosity, just how did you get your head that far up your ass?

Long-term effects of Gulf oil spill on shrimp, other species is still unknown
January 29, 2012
(excerpts)
....the long-term effects on fish species from that oil, and the chemicals used to fight it, are still largely unknown. Possible effects on the growth and mortality of Gulf shrimp could come from a variety of factors, including alterations in the food they eat or the species who prey on them, changes in the marsh they inhabit, or changes in their own biology. Hanging ominously over the Gulf studies is the specter of the collapse of the Pacific herring fishery in Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1993, four years after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. The federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment, or NRDA, is looking at some of the BP spill's potential effect on shrimp. BP has pledged to spend $1 billion on "early restoration" projects, with Louisiana in line to get $200 million, but the company and other parties responsible for the spill may eventually have to spend as much as $20 billion on natural resource projects.

lmao........gotta give this guy props for effort. He takes about 25 minutes to make up one post, but in the end, its all drivel.

Show us where the world is all hyper- angst about this stuff? Please show me. You extremist dolts have been posting this kind of crap up for the last 20 years with zero impact. In fact, the impacts have now become the butt of massive amounts of laughter from being able to make fun of the lame efforts of the green k00ks to change things.

The latest? Top story about a guy who won 10 million for coming up with a light bulb......that only costs $50 a unit


still losing

 

[code1211]

32 Extreme Weather Disasters Caused Over $1B Damage Each In 2011

That's awful! There were no expensive disasters before we started using fossil fuels.

Actually , that's probably pretty true. Before the use of fossil fuels, there was never the capability to support the population's need for for food.

Also, the roughly one tenth of the population that could be supported were all living in mud holes because they couldn't afford the cost of building homes. Hotels were dream of the future and transportation had not developed to the point where coastal cities were widespread.

Following the widespread use of fossil fuel, we are well fed, wealthy, well traveled, globally connected and comfortable in any location at any time of year.

The use of fossil fuel has converted our world into a paradise for mankind.

The advent of expensive natural disasters is the proof of the value and need of fossil fuel.

 

[theliq]

32 Extreme Weather Disasters Caused Over $1B Damage Each In 2011

That's awful! There were no expensive disasters before we started using fossil fuels.

Actually , that's probably pretty true. Before the use of fossil fuels, there was never the capability to support the population's need for for food.

Also, the roughly one tenth of the population that could be supported were all living in mud holes because they couldn't afford the cost of building homes. Hotels were dream of the future and transportation had not developed to the point where coastal cities were widespread.

Following the widespread use of fossil fuel, we are well fed, wealthy, well traveled, globally connected and comfortable in any location at any time of year.

The use of fossil fuel has converted our world into a paradise for mankind.

The advent of expensive natural disasters is the proof of the value and need of fossil fuel.

Much TRUTH IN WHAT YOU SAY Codie, but we have diverged off the original subject.

What I wish to tell you all and add to this commentary IS....A study has and or is still being done in Tasmania,Australia on a very isolated penninsular where the nearest landfall taking the wind and air currents into consideration is South America and Antarctica.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT,Dioxins,Pesticides and other carcinogens.....which affect and cause birth defects,heart and respitory conditions and many other illnesses........so PCB's and all,used in the US and other parts of the world are found to be floating around the atmosphere and even have been located in the most isolated places.

In essence we are polluting our planet and ourselves......this study has been running for over 10 years........the lemmings that think industrialization has NO effect on everywhere throughout the world are merely continuing to bury their heads deeper and deeper into the ground.

You all are essentially walking around breathing in these poisons,educated societies are moving to a greener life.....much to the astonishment of the Lemming population which there are quite a number on here.

Whilst the Lemmings continue to distract with their ignorant opinions,forward thinking educated folk are monitoring this growing problem.

Keep spewing you rehtoric........but go see your Doctor and have some tests....he/she could save your life...just saying.tl Paradise not for ever Codie and not for some even today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's awful! There were no expensive disasters before we started using fossil fuels.

Actually , that's probably pretty true. Before the use of fossil fuels, there was never the capability to support the population's need for for food.

Also, the roughly one tenth of the population that could be supported were all living in mud holes because they couldn't afford the cost of building homes. Hotels were dream of the future and transportation had not developed to the point where coastal cities were widespread.

Following the widespread use of fossil fuel, we are well fed, wealthy, well traveled, globally connected and comfortable in any location at any time of year.

The use of fossil fuel has converted our world into a paradise for mankind.

The advent of expensive natural disasters is the proof of the value and need of fossil fuel.

Much TRUTH IN WHAT YOU SAY Codie, but we have diverged off the original subject.

What I wish to tell you all and add to this commentary IS....A study has and or is still being done in Tasmania,Australia on a very isolated penninsular where the nearest landfall taking the wind and air currents into consideration is South America and Antarctica.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT,Dioxins,Pesticides and other carcinogens.....which affect and cause birth defects,heart and respitory conditions and many other illnesses........so PCB's and all,used in the US and other parts of the world are found to be floating around the atmosphere and even have been located in the most isolated places.

In essence we are polluting our planet and ourselves......this study has been running for over 10 years........the lemmings that think industrialization has NO effect on everywhere throughout the world are merely continuing to bury their heads deeper and deeper into the ground.

You all are essentially walking around breathing in these poisons,educated societies are moving to a greener life.....much to the astonishment of the Lemming population which there are quite a number on here.

Whilst the Lemmings continue to distract with their ignorant opinions,forward thinking educated folk are monitoring this growing problem.

Keep spewing you rehtoric........but go see your Doctor and have some tests....he/she could save your life...just saying.tl Paradise not for ever Codie and not for some even today.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT

What is the "dangerous level of DDT"?

 

[theliq]

Actually , that's probably pretty true. Before the use of fossil fuels, there was never the capability to support the population's need for for food.

Also, the roughly one tenth of the population that could be supported were all living in mud holes because they couldn't afford the cost of building homes. Hotels were dream of the future and transportation had not developed to the point where coastal cities were widespread.

Following the widespread use of fossil fuel, we are well fed, wealthy, well traveled, globally connected and comfortable in any location at any time of year.

The use of fossil fuel has converted our world into a paradise for mankind.

The advent of expensive natural disasters is the proof of the value and need of fossil fuel.

Much TRUTH IN WHAT YOU SAY Codie, but we have diverged off the original subject.

What I wish to tell you all and add to this commentary IS....A study has and or is still being done in Tasmania,Australia on a very isolated penninsular where the nearest landfall taking the wind and air currents into consideration is South America and Antarctica.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT,Dioxins,Pesticides and other carcinogens.....which affect and cause birth defects,heart and respitory conditions and many other illnesses........so PCB's and all,used in the US and other parts of the world are found to be floating around the atmosphere and even have been located in the most isolated places.

In essence we are polluting our planet and ourselves......this study has been running for over 10 years........the lemmings that think industrialization has NO effect on everywhere throughout the world are merely continuing to bury their heads deeper and deeper into the ground.

You all are essentially walking around breathing in these poisons,educated societies are moving to a greener life.....much to the astonishment of the Lemming population which there are quite a number on here.

Whilst the Lemmings continue to distract with their ignorant opinions,forward thinking educated folk are monitoring this growing problem.

Keep spewing you rehtoric........but go see your Doctor and have some tests....he/she could save your life...just saying.tl Paradise not for ever Codie and not for some even today.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT

What is the "dangerous level of DDT"?

A level that can harm the unborn.........I thought DDT had been banned in most countries Todd..????????...let me know.steve

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much TRUTH IN WHAT YOU SAY Codie, but we have diverged off the original subject.

What I wish to tell you all and add to this commentary IS....A study has and or is still being done in Tasmania,Australia on a very isolated penninsular where the nearest landfall taking the wind and air currents into consideration is South America and Antarctica.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT,Dioxins,Pesticides and other carcinogens.....which affect and cause birth defects,heart and respitory conditions and many other illnesses........so PCB's and all,used in the US and other parts of the world are found to be floating around the atmosphere and even have been located in the most isolated places.

In essence we are polluting our planet and ourselves......this study has been running for over 10 years........the lemmings that think industrialization has NO effect on everywhere throughout the world are merely continuing to bury their heads deeper and deeper into the ground.

You all are essentially walking around breathing in these poisons,educated societies are moving to a greener life.....much to the astonishment of the Lemming population which there are quite a number on here.

Whilst the Lemmings continue to distract with their ignorant opinions,forward thinking educated folk are monitoring this growing problem.

Keep spewing you rehtoric........but go see your Doctor and have some tests....he/she could save your life...just saying.tl Paradise not for ever Codie and not for some even today.

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT

What is the "dangerous level of DDT"?

A level that can harm the unborn.........I thought DDT had been banned in most countries Todd..????????...let me know.steve

Yes, it has.
So what's the "dangerous level"?

 

[theliq]

This study has found that floating around the earth are dangerous levels of DDT

What is the "dangerous level of DDT"?

A level that can harm the unborn.........I thought DDT had been banned in most countries Todd..????????...let me know.steve

Yes, it has.
So what's the "dangerous level"?

I will find out Todd but why the need to know as you full well know this product is dangerous....MMMMMmmmmm semantics steve.

Anyway trust you are keeping well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A level that can harm the unborn.........I thought DDT had been banned in most countries Todd..????????...let me know.steve

Yes, it has.
So what's the "dangerous level"?

I will find out Todd but why the need to know as you full well know this product is dangerous....MMMMMmmmmm semantics steve.

Anyway trust you are keeping well.

I don't know that DDT is dangerous to humans.

 

[theliq]

Yes, it has.
So what's the "dangerous level"?

I will find out Todd but why the need to know as you full well know this product is dangerous....MMMMMmmmmm semantics steve.

Anyway trust you are keeping well.

I don't know that DDT is dangerous to humans.

It is,it's Genotoxic,moreover it can remain in the soil for 30 years,kills wild life (birds mainly) but crops with this product sprayed can get into the food chain. That is why it is Banned in many countries.steve

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will find out Todd but why the need to know as you full well know this product is dangerous....MMMMMmmmmm semantics steve.

Anyway trust you are keeping well.

I don't know that DDT is dangerous to humans.

It is,it's Genotoxic,moreover it can remain in the soil for 30 years,kills wild life (birds mainly) but crops with this product sprayed can get into the food chain. That is why it is Banned in many countries.steve

Genotoxic? According to who?

Does it kill more people than malaria?

 

[IanC]

why do people seem to want, seem to need the crazy IPCC positive feedback to be right so that we can blame mankind's wickedness.

What an idiotic comment! No one "needs" or "wants" the scientific studies of the positive feedbacks in the physics of global warming "to be right". They simply are correct and based on sound science. This has nothing to do with some idiocy about "mankind's wickedness". Where do you get that crap? This has to do with the choices in energy sources mankind made a long time ago. Unfortunately for us now, the path we've gone down in developing the use of fossil fuels was begun in ignorance of the long term consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (up 40% so far and still rising fast) by burning off millions of years of naturally sequestered CO2 (i.e.- fossil fuels) in only a few centuries.

I was commenting on a rather naive post by Peach but I dont mind responding to your take on it. the IPCC value of positive feedback for increased CO2 levels is contrary to the natural order of the climate system. we would have 'tipped' already in the past because positive feedback loops are unstable. the only reason climate models produce a positive value is because they are programed to produce a positive value.

'mankind's wickedness' has been a theme throughout history, and is common today. people like to believe we are responsible for what goes on around us and hope that our actions control things, even if it just through God's pleasure or anger. science has continuously put mankind further and further from the centre of the universe and for good reason. CAGW has put mankind back on the map and many people are happy about that even if it is a negative. your comment on sequestered carbon neccesarily being a bad thing is just an example of this.

people will continue to burn carbon until we find alternative energy sources that are compatible with our needs. hydro is limited by geography, solar is inefficient and hard to scale, wind is expensive and unreliable, biofuels are inefficient and hard on the poor, only nuclear has an easily foreseeable future. compare the Model T with a modern minivan. if we were interested in making progress in the design of various sizes of nuclear power plants we could do it.

I am skeptical of both sides of global warming. if it seems I am harder on the CAGW alarmists it is because they make great claims that are not supported in any realistic way by science. just because I believe there is a mechanism by which increased CO2 can warm the surface, that does not mean I have to agree with all the unsupported bullshit about climate change being the cause of everything bad in the world. all of the predictions have failed except for the non-comittal palm reader ones that are only true if you interpret the vague answer in the right way. I am harder on CAGW because they are the ones who want to waste trillions of dollars that could be used in a much more useful way.

go on Rolling Thunder.....time for your next rant of ad homs and appeals to authority.