Why Global Warming is total bullshit 101

[bigrebnc1775]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

Yep it's called HARRP AND MAINTAINED BY THE PEOPLE YOU TRUST.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The same could be said for your brain, except that statement would be true!

And you still fail to understand that 100PPM is a .01% change in the total atmosphere

Your Elder brother in the AGW Cult OldRocks tell us that CO2 is like some alkaloid poison that even small doses are lethal, all I'm saying is show us in a lab or shut the fuck up.

Adding it would be a 20% increase over current atmospheric content. Considering that without any CO2 the earth would be much cooler, what effect would an additional 20% have? None?

The effects of CO2 overdose have been studied in the lab and the ability of CO2 to absorb energy has been studied in the lab. What more do you want?

I think you need to admit that OR never said anything about small doses being lethal and explain what happens to IR absorbed by added CO2 in light of Conservation of Energy.

Yes, none is the correct answer. We're not Venus, we're Earth and CO2 is less than a rounding error in our atmosphere so increasing a rounding error 20-30-40% is still insignificant

I keep telling you you can DOUBLE it in a lab setting if it will help show how it causes hurricanes, tornadoes, melts ice caps and acidifies the oceans but you never take the challenge.

I know you can't math but either you can read either or you didn't bother to check a few posts up where OR equated CO2 with cyanide.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

You'd lose. Big time too. Which is why I'd love to find a way to Short Global Warming futures

Sure, I'm 'extreme right wing' whatdever that means but I take the time to read the "scientific" literature on the subject and, if you pay attention to what they write, you will see that not only is there not one single lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase does anything alleged, but they manipulate, destroy and distort the raw data.

When they trot out the Vostok ice cores as "proof" of AGW, you see that CO2 LAGS the warming by 800-1000 years. It does not LEAD the warming, it LAGS, it is a byproduct of prior warming

Stop letting the AGW Church do your thinking for you

Stop being intimidated by AGW "Scientists"

Without missing a breath they tell us that CO2 is leaving the oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and then they tell us that CO2 is entering the ocean in historic amounts causing the oceans to turn "Acidic" and the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It can't be both.

The Man behind the AGW Curtain is full of crap.

 

[KevinWestern]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

You'd lose. Big time too. Which is why I'd love to find a way to Short Global Warming futures

Sure, I'm 'extreme right wing' whatdever that means but I take the time to read the "scientific" literature on the subject and, if you pay attention to what they write, you will see that not only is there not one single lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase does anything alleged, but they manipulate, destroy and distort the raw data.

When they trot out the Vostok ice cores as "proof" of AGW, you see that CO2 LAGS the warming by 800-1000 years. It does not LEAD the warming, it LAGS, it is a byproduct of prior warming

Stop letting the AGW Church do your thinking for you

Stop being intimidated by AGW "Scientists"

Without missing a breath they tell us that CO2 is leaving the oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and then they tell us that CO2 is entering the ocean in historic amounts causing the oceans to turn "Acidic" and the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It can't be both.

The Man behind the AGW Curtain is full of crap.

Frank – What it comes down to is (a) accept the general scientific consensus and form your view in accordance with that of every single national science institution of the developed world (virtually all conclude global warming is likely man-made), or (b) believe in a WORLDWIDE conspiracy, where all of those scientists from different countries (every single one) collude together in secret, in order to trick the world into thinking a false conclusion for the purpose of some grand liberal hidden agenda.

If you say there’s strong evidence disproving global warming, then why would all of these national institutions COMPLETELY ignore this?

Again, I guess I’m just the type of person who doesn’t buy into grand conspiracy theories. Perhaps we just agree to disagree on this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

You'd lose. Big time too. Which is why I'd love to find a way to Short Global Warming futures

Sure, I'm 'extreme right wing' whatdever that means but I take the time to read the "scientific" literature on the subject and, if you pay attention to what they write, you will see that not only is there not one single lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase does anything alleged, but they manipulate, destroy and distort the raw data.

When they trot out the Vostok ice cores as "proof" of AGW, you see that CO2 LAGS the warming by 800-1000 years. It does not LEAD the warming, it LAGS, it is a byproduct of prior warming

Stop letting the AGW Church do your thinking for you

Stop being intimidated by AGW "Scientists"

Without missing a breath they tell us that CO2 is leaving the oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and then they tell us that CO2 is entering the ocean in historic amounts causing the oceans to turn "Acidic" and the two concepts are mutually exclusive. It can't be both.

The Man behind the AGW Curtain is full of crap.

Frank – What it comes down to is (a) accept the general scientific consensus and form your view in accordance with that of every single national science institution of the developed world (virtually all conclude global warming is likely man-made), or (b) believe in a WORLDWIDE conspiracy, where all of those scientists from different countries (every single one) colludes together to trick the world into thinking a false conclusion.

If you say there’s strong evidence disproving global warming, then why would all of these national institutions COMPLETELY ignore this?

Again, I guess I’m just the type of person who doesn’t buy into grand conspiracy theories. Perhaps we just agree to disagree on this.

I'm not saying that there's no Global Warming, I dispute the notion that mankind is causing is with CO2.

The AGW crowd could easily run side by side test where we have Earth atmosphere in one flask and Earth atmosphere plus 100PPM CO2 in another and they never do. Why? If it's so powerful why can't they show us how it does all these evil things in a lab setting?

They tell us the system is far too complex to replicate in a lab that it's subject to too may other variable and if that's the case then how can they say they've identified an increase in a trace element as the culprit?

A short 14,000 years ago, before recent Global Warming, the land where my house sits in NY was under a mile of ice. I prefer warmer.

All the AGW crowd wants to do is shut down Western civilization. They've convinced us to pay for our own economic suicide

 

[konradv]

And you still fail to understand that 100PPM is a .01% change in the total atmosphere

Your Elder brother in the AGW Cult OldRocks tell us that CO2 is like some alkaloid poison that even small doses are lethal, all I'm saying is show us in a lab or shut the fuck up.

Adding it would be a 20% increase over current atmospheric content. Considering that without any CO2 the earth would be much cooler, what effect would an additional 20% have? None?

The effects of CO2 overdose have been studied in the lab and the ability of CO2 to absorb energy has been studied in the lab. What more do you want?

I think you need to admit that OR never said anything about small doses being lethal and explain what happens to IR absorbed by added CO2 in light of Conservation of Energy.

Yes, none is the correct answer. We're not Venus, we're Earth and CO2 is less than a rounding error in our atmosphere so increasing a rounding error 20-30-40% is still insignificant

I keep telling you you can DOUBLE it in a lab setting if it will help show how it causes hurricanes, tornadoes, melts ice caps and acidifies the oceans but you never take the challenge.

I know you can't math but either you can read either or you didn't bother to check a few posts up where OR equated CO2 with cyanide.

There are limitations to lab work. Haven't figured out how to get a hurricane in a lab..., YET!. There are also implications to the lab work that bear explanation that you choose to ignore, like Conservation of Energy. What happens to that energy, if not to generate possible "hurricanes, tornadoes, melt(ing) ice caps and acidif(ying) the oceans"? Your move.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm not saying that there's no Global Warming, I dispute the notion that mankind is causing is with CO2.

The AGW crowd could easily run side by side test where we have Earth atmosphere in one flask and Earth atmosphere plus 100PPM CO2 in another and they never do. Why? If it's so powerful why can't they show us how it does all these evil things in a lab setting?

That's fine, but I do think the title of your OP then is a tad misleading - "Why Global Warming is Total Bullshit 101".

As for the man-made aspect, I'm just going to stick to the scientific consensus for now. Also, I don't believe anyone's trying to "destroy" western civilization when they make the case for AGW, I think they're instead trying to protect it.

 

[eflatminor]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made....

...Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says...

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Adding it would be a 20% increase over current atmospheric content. Considering that without any CO2 the earth would be much cooler, what effect would an additional 20% have? None?

The effects of CO2 overdose have been studied in the lab and the ability of CO2 to absorb energy has been studied in the lab. What more do you want?

I think you need to admit that OR never said anything about small doses being lethal and explain what happens to IR absorbed by added CO2 in light of Conservation of Energy.

Yes, none is the correct answer. We're not Venus, we're Earth and CO2 is less than a rounding error in our atmosphere so increasing a rounding error 20-30-40% is still insignificant

I keep telling you you can DOUBLE it in a lab setting if it will help show how it causes hurricanes, tornadoes, melts ice caps and acidifies the oceans but you never take the challenge.

I know you can't math but either you can read either or you didn't bother to check a few posts up where OR equated CO2 with cyanide.

There are limitations to lab work. Haven't figured out how to get a hurricane in a lab..., YET!. There are also implications to the lab work that bear explanation that you choose to ignore, like Conservation of Energy. What happens to that energy, if not to generate possible "hurricanes, tornadoes, melt(ing) ice caps and acidif(ying) the oceans"? Your move.

The burden of proof falls on you and your silly, nonsensical, anti common sense theory, Dear.

We can create the condition a nanosecond after the big bang in a lab, surely we can add 100PPM of CO2 to a flask and at least get a measurable temperature increase, no? Your models call for a 5-7% increase, remember?

 

[Old Rocks]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made.

Some deniers point to conspiracy, and say that all of the world’s major scientific institutions have been “bought out” by governments in order to make the case for a carbon tax (yes, ALL of the world's major scientific institutions). But if you actually use your brain for a moment you will come to the realization that this conspiracy – just like many others – is too grand to have any basis in reality.

Perhaps if the split was 50/50 between the world’s science institutions, I might have second thoughts about not siding with the dissenters. But it’s not.

Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says, rather than the opinion of a random internet guy (CrusaderFrank) who is generally extremely right-leaning.

Yep it's called HARRP AND MAINTAINED BY THE PEOPLE YOU TRUST.

Oh where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat

 

[KevinWestern]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made....

...Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says...

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

To be honest - I didn't believe them.

But as a side note, my parents were still in high school in 1977, and in fact - I don't think they were even dating yet...

Look, I didn't say that scientists can't be wrong (I made the point earlier that the majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat), I'm just saying that if an opinion must be formed on a scientific subject, it makes sense - at least for me - to form that opinion in accordance with what the grand majority of science has concluded, when there is a grand majority consensus (which is not always the case).

To form it alongside the fringe view seems like it takes a much larger leap of faith to me.

If there are 10 scientists, each with equally reputable backgrounds, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the 9 scientists saying A are correct, vs the 1 scientist saying B?

 

[Old Rocks]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made....

...Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says...

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

Stupid ass, now you are outright lying. The majority of scientists that were involved in climate studies at that time, by a six to one margin, stated that they thought that global warming would be the coming danger.

And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions, but if they had to put numbers on it, that the chance of cooling was about 5%, that of warming, about 95%.

RealClimate: The global cooling myth

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate

I might also add, why do you choose to get your science from Time? Ever hear of peer reviewed scientific journals?

 

[Old Rocks]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made....

...Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says...

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

To be honest - I didn't believe them. Why? Because my parents were still in high school in 1977, and in fact - I don't think they were even dating yet...

Look, I didn't say that scientists can't be wrong (I made the point earlier that the majority of scientists once thought the earth was flat), I'm just saying that if an opinion must be formed on a scientific subject, it makes sense - at least for me - to form that opinion in accordance with what the grand majority of science has concluded.

To form it alongside the fringe view seems like it takes a much larger leap of faith to me.

If there are 10 scientists, each with equally reputable backgrounds, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the 9 scientists saying A are correct, vs the 1 scientist saying B?

Well, since I was born in '43, I read the PNAS report in 1975 the year it came out. I also remember the blathering articles in Newsweek and Time. So called science reporters that had obviously never taken a science course in their whole lives.

If one wants to make judgements on a scientific issue, one should go to peer reviewed scientific journals, and read first hand what the scientists state. Here is one source of peer reviewed articles from journals all over the world addressing AGW.

AGW Observer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I’m not a scientist personally, nor do I study the subject extensively, but from what I can gather, a great majority of the reputable scientific institutions that spend all of their time studying the subject matter have concluded that global warming exists, and that it is likely man-made....

...Therefore, I’m putting my money on what the majority of science says...

Back in the 1970s, the great majority of reputable scientific institutions were just sure that we were headed for another ice age. Did you believe them as well?

Anyone remember the April 1977 cover of Time Magazine?

Stupid ass, now you are outright lying. The majority of scientists that were involved in climate studies at that time, by a six to one margin, stated that they thought that global warming would be the coming danger.

And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions, but if they had to put numbers on it, that the chance of cooling was about 5%, that of warming, about 95%.

RealClimate: The global cooling myth

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate

I might also add, why do you choose to get your science from Time? Ever hear of peer reviewed scientific journals?

"...the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate"

Did you read what you posted?

Is "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate" a byproduct of Global warming?

 

[eflatminor]

And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions

And that hasn't changed.

Tell you what, you believe what you want. You can be 100% sure that you know what tomorrow's weather will be and the day after that. I have no problem with your hubris.

That however does NOT give you the right to impose bullshit redistribution and regulatory schemes on the rest of us. If you're sure the seas are rising, move away from the shore and leave the rest of us to drown in your assurance of what's to come.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie boy, I have come to expect such idiocy from you. Did you not note that the authors were refering to the natural course of things in the Milankovic Cycles? And that they qualified it with the caveat concerning anthropogenic GHGs? After all, it was highlighted red. Color blind?

 

[eflatminor]

If there are 10 scientists, each with equally reputable backgrounds, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the 9 scientists saying A are correct, vs the 1 scientist saying B?

1) It depends on how those scientists are funded; and 2) how many times throughout history has the dissenting scientist turned out to be correct? Thank goodness we didn't take your approach when Galileo and Newton stood up the scientific community who was just convinced the earth was at the center of the universe.

Anyway, believe whatever you like. That does not give anyone the right to impose that belief on others. Sell your car, turn off your electrical appliances, eat only what falls from nearby trees...whatever you think it right. Just don't tell me your beliefs mean I owe someone else money or that more unconstitutional government agencies are required.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie boy, I have come to expect such idiocy from you. Did you not note that the authors were refering to the natural course of things in the Milankovic Cycles? And that they qualified it with the caveat concerning anthropogenic GHGs? After all, it was highlighted red. Color blind?

I didn't miss it at all, obviously that's where you stopped reading.

Had you continued you might have gotten to the conclusion which said "the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate"

Now if your wisp of CO2 can swamp climate changes from Earth's orbit, that should be something readily demonstrable in a lab, no?

 

[Old Rocks]

And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions

And that hasn't changed.

Tell you what, you believe what you want. You can be 100% sure that you know what tomorrow's weather will be and the day after that. I have no problem with your hubris.

That however does NOT give you the right to impose bullshit redistribution and regulatory schemes on the rest of us. If you're sure the seas are rising, move away from the shore and leave the rest of us to drown in your assurance of what's to come.

Bullshit. We are not talking weather, we are speaking of climate.

As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.

One problem you deniers are totally blind to, is that we do not know exactly how the rapid climate change will play out. We know now that consequences come at a much lower temperture increase than our models indicated. Consequences such as the rapid melt of Arctic Sea Ice and the outgassing of Arctic Clathrates. What we do know is that we have 7 billion people on this planet dependent on a reasonable climate in which agriculture can feed us. What we saw in 2010 and 2011 does not give confidence that we can expect that climate in the future.

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie boy, I have come to expect such idiocy from you. Did you not note that the authors were refering to the natural course of things in the Milankovic Cycles? And that they qualified it with the caveat concerning anthropogenic GHGs? After all, it was highlighted red. Color blind?

I didn't miss it at all, obviously that's where you stopped reading.

Had you continued you might have gotten to the conclusion which said "the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate"

Now if your wisp of CO2 can swamp climate changes from Earth's orbit, that should be something readily demonstrable in a lab, no?

If you have a lab that can accomadate a planet sized experiment. But, never mind, we are doing that experiment right now. Problem is, can't go back if we don't like the results.