Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.
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.
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.
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.
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 theres strong evidence disproving global warming, then why would all of these national institutions COMPLETELY ignore this?
Again, I guess Im just the type of person who doesnt buy into grand conspiracy theories. Perhaps we just agree to disagree on this.
ordinarily I would agree with you. but in this case you are wrong. the majority of skeptical scientists dont deny that there IS a component of global warming that can be attributed to CO2. roughly 1C per doubling if everything else stays the same. skeptics disagree on the feedbacks, the overall importance of increasing CO2, and especially the prophesies of doom that are the conclusions of so many papers on global warming.
it doesnt take a conspiracy to get where we are now, except perhaps by the top climate scientists that work very hard to control the message that gets out to the public. climate science has thrown away scientific principals to instead act like lawyers defending their case by ignoring contradictory evidence and overstating their own, all the while influencing peer review and manipulating what gets into the IPCC reports.
Scientific organizations have taken the easy way out. it is simple (and truthful) to state that CO2 adds a warming component, and that much of the increase is directly tied to manmade causes. it is expedient to acknowledge that there may be serious conseqences down the road even though the chances of doom are low. the precautionary principle is in effect here. the support for bad methodologies and vastly overstated certainties is in my opinion verging on criminality. the damage that SCIENCE will have brought down upon itself is hard to estimate but it will certainly empty the banked reserve of trust and credibility that may be needed down the road for a real problem.
you really have to ask yourself if there has been enough evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of natural processes controlling the climate to Trnberth's claim that CO2 is the thermostat. I personally dont think so because CO2 theory seems to fall apart at every turn and the scientists involved seem to discount actual physical evidence and over rely upon their pretty computer models.
As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.
Ah, spoken like a true central planner. Well, that's why I come here...rule #1, know thy enemy.
Thanks for making it clear that you know what's best. I'll check in with you the next time I need to take a shit. Just want to clear it with you, get your okay. Oh thank goodness we have your superior guidance to lead us all...forward.
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.
ordinarily I would agree with you. but in this case you are wrong. the majority of skeptical scientists dont deny that there IS a component of global warming that can be attributed to CO2. roughly 1C per doubling if everything else stays the same. skeptics disagree on the feedbacks, the overall importance of increasing CO2, and especially the prophesies of doom that are the conclusions of so many papers on global warming.
it doesnt take a conspiracy to get where we are now, except perhaps by the top climate scientists that work very hard to control the message that gets out to the public. climate science has thrown away scientific principals to instead act like lawyers defending their case by ignoring contradictory evidence and overstating their own, all the while influencing peer review and manipulating what gets into the IPCC reports.
Scientific organizations have taken the easy way out. it is simple (and truthful) to state that CO2 adds a warming component, and that much of the increase is directly tied to manmade causes. it is expedient to acknowledge that there may be serious conseqences down the road even though the chances of doom are low. the precautionary principle is in effect here. the support for bad methodologies and vastly overstated certainties is in my opinion verging on criminality. the damage that SCIENCE will have brought down upon itself is hard to estimate but it will certainly empty the banked reserve of trust and credibility that may be needed down the road for a real problem.
you really have to ask yourself if there has been enough evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of natural processes controlling the climate to Trnberth's claim that CO2 is the thermostat. I personally dont think so because CO2 theory seems to fall apart at every turn and the scientists involved seem to discount actual physical evidence and over rely upon their pretty computer models.
A23A
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.
Silly dingleberry. We are talking about scientists from every country and political system on earth. So you are stating that they are all getting their funding from one place. What a grand conspiracy theory.
Galileo went against the church orthodoxy, not other scientists with his support of the Coppernican plantery system. Newton was hailed in his time as the greatest living scientist by other scientists. You really should know something about history before you flap your yap.
As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.
Ah, spoken like a true central planner. Well, that's why I come here...rule #1, know thy enemy.
Thanks for making it clear that you know what's best. I'll check in with you the next time I need to take a shit. Just want to clear it with you, get your okay. Oh thank goodness we have your superior guidance to lead us all...forward.
Dumb ass, what happened in WW2? You think that if we face a great enough crisis that we will not respond to it as we did WW2?
We came close in the summer of last year. Had one of the upper dams, such as the Fort Peck on the upper Missouri let go, it would have taken out evey dam down stream on the Missouri and Mississippi. On a couple of the upper dams, the spillways were beginning to chunk out. It was a far closer thing than is generally known.
As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.
Ah, spoken like a true central planner. Well, that's why I come here...rule #1, know thy enemy.
Thanks for making it clear that you know what's best. I'll check in with you the next time I need to take a shit. Just want to clear it with you, get your okay. Oh thank goodness we have your superior guidance to lead us all...forward.
Dumb ass, what happened in WW2? You think that if we face a great enough crisis that we will not respond to it as we did WW2?
We came close in the summer of last year. Had one of the upper dams, such as the Fort Peck on the upper Missouri let go, it would have taken out evey dam down stream on the Missouri and Mississippi. On a couple of the upper dams, the spillways were beginning to chunk out. It was a far closer thing than is generally known.
Of course such a small part can do no harm. So why don't you take one gram of postassium cyanide. In such a large complex system as your body is, such a small part can do no harm. By you own logic.
Cretins like Frankie Boy constantly repeat such idiocy, demonstrating that fact that they have not a functioning brain. In the meantime, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that they are full of shit.
Im 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, Im 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?
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?
No, actually, that doesn't make sense. If you asked the majority of geologists in 1950 whether the continents moved, 99% of them would have told said you were daft for even considering it. by 1970, they all endorsed the theory of continental drift.
Majority opinion is irrelevant to scientific truth.
Of course such a small part can do no harm. So why don't you take one gram of postassium cyanide. In such a large complex system as your body is, such a small part can do no harm. By you own logic.
Cretins like Frankie Boy constantly repeat such idiocy, demonstrating that fact that they have not a functioning brain. In the meantime, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that they are full of shit.
CO2 isn't a toxic substance, you fucking moron.
Im 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, Im 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?
