16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[PredFan]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...



I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

We can't force you to be right either. But we can refute nonsense when we see it.

Irony. Apparently you cannot.

AGW is not a scam.

See?

The world is getting warmer.

Not all scientists agree and if so, so what?

The Greenhouse Effect is the dominant cause.

No, that would be the sun.

The Greenhouse Effect is acting on increased levels of CO2, methane, water vapor and so forth.

Thanks for the primer on the Greenhouse effect.

The source of those gases is either anthropogenic or a result of the warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions.

And therein lies the scam. That is patently false and has never been reliably proven to be true. In fact it has been proven many many times that CO2 levels FOLLOW increases in temperature. You AGW sheep confuse cause and effect.

But hey, you want to believe it, I'm sure I will not change your "mind".

I cannot force you to be right.

 

[Boss]

The source of those gases is either anthropogenic or a result of the warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions.

How do you account for the much larger increases from 200k, 300k, 400k years ago? Were dinosaurs burning fossil fuels? Perhaps microbial life was industrialized and we haven't discovered that? What is your theory on this, I would be interested to know?

 

[mamooth]

In fact it has been proven many many times that CO2 levels FOLLOW increases in temperature.

Retard logic on your part.

The fact that something happened in the past does not force it to happen the same way in the future, especially if conditions are different. It's every bit as stupid as saying "Well, species went extinct without human intervention in the past, so extinctions can't be caused by humans now!".

You AGW sheep confuse cause and effect.

Given how hard you suck at basic logic, I'd only worry if you agreed with me. You usually display anti-knowledge. If you say it, the safe money is on it being wrong.

That's the general trait of denialists. It's not so much the science, but the way they fail at general logic and common sense. People who can use valid reasoning simply don't get sucked into the denialist cult.

 

[mamooth]

How do you account for the much larger increases from 200k, 300k, 400k years ago? Were dinosaurs burning fossil fuels? Perhaps microbial life was industrialized and we haven't discovered that? What is your theory on this, I would be interested to know?

Natural cycles. No one has ever denied they existed.

However, we _know_, from the isotope ratio measurements, that the current increase is due to human action. This is 100% certain, not debatable by any rational person. And we also know the current _rate_ of increase is unlike anything seen in the past, which such increases took place over a span of tens of thousands years.

 

[Boss]

How do you account for the much larger increases from 200k, 300k, 400k years ago? Were dinosaurs burning fossil fuels? Perhaps microbial life was industrialized and we haven't discovered that? What is your theory on this, I would be interested to know?

Natural cycles. No one has ever denied they existed.

However, we _know_, from the isotope ratio measurements, that the current increase is due to human action. This is 100% certain, not debatable by any rational person. And we also know the current _rate_ of increase is unlike anything seen in the past, which such increases took place over a span of tens of thousands years.

I'm sorry, but we DON'T know that, it's a theory that hasn't been proven. We also don't have evidence that previous spikes in CO2 were not greater than the current spike.

You will notice, the spikes in CO2 at fairly consistent intervals (cycles) and that previous spikes were greater than the current spike. The last spike came 130k years ago, and it was much more rapid than the current spike. Humans certainly didn't cause this. At 240k years ago, there was another spike, which is on the level of the current spike, but again, humans couldn't have caused this. And 330k years ago, there was a spike considerably greater than our current spike, which was totally impossible for humans to cause, because we didn't yet exist. This spike occurred much more rapidly than the current spike.

Now, the ice core samples don't have a political agenda, they can't manipulate data and present a lie or misrepresentation. They show what they show, and we have to accept it as fact. Also included, is a chart showing the subsequent resulting changes in temperature, and you will notice these 'warming periods' were greater than the current warming period. The ice caps didn't melt away, causing the oceans to flood coasts and catastrophe to ensue, the planet, without the help of a single 'do-gooder' liberal, was able to mitigate the change and return to normal again. Over and over, this has happened, so there is no reason to believe it won't happen again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

If I didn't believe what I post I wouldn't post it. That is because, unlike you, I think about everything I post, and I understand that I am quite capable of being wrong. You, on the other hand, when confronted with proof that you are wrong, will either continue saying the same thing, or leave and never mention the subject again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The question that should be asked is

1.Is solar or wind good?
2. Is cleaning up coal good?
3. Can increasing fuel standards that allow for more miles per gallon, good?

If you agree with all...I don't understand how the general policies are that extreme.

1. Define good in this context.

• Solar power takes a larger area that a conventional power plant.
• It requires more disruptive mining on the front end.
• It raises the ambient temperature of the area it is occupying, which disrupts the local ecological balance.
• Wind farms are noisy and disruptive to local wildlife.
• They kill migratory birds that take advantage of the same wind patterns needed for wind mills to operate better.
• They need an even larger area than a solar plant to generate the same output.
• Is this good, or bad?

2. What is it you are asking here? Cleaning it up how?
3. Is it good to kill more people just to get a few more MPG? Does it really make sense to have a car without a spare tire?


Maybe you should actually think about what you are asking instead of declaring that you have all the answers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what do any of these three things being "good" or "extreme" have to do with man's contributions to changing climate?

Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).

Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.

Wow, wrong on both counts. At least you are consistent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

Oh take a hike you sanctimonious unethical twerp. You don't know anything about anything. You are a propagandist through and through. Let me know when you've taken your remedial Finnish geography lesson too so we can test your knowledge on that!

But he read a book!

I keep trying to explain to him that reading one book on a subject does not an expert make, but he must read really slow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

It's because you so obviously don't believe what you post yourself.

Any eleven-year-old child could explain to you why biology is essential to our understanding of climate, and yet here you are demanding explanations and then ignoring them when they are provided.

Why not try debating the topic as if you were an adult?

Saigon, what I continue to see you doing, is trying to argue your point from the perspective of the obvious, which doesn't establish your point at all. It's like Chicken Little running around speaking of all the terrible dangers of a falling sky... it gets in your hair... it could hurt your head... it might even kill somebody! You need to be proving that man is contributing to climate change, and all you're doing is talking about the effects of climate change. We all understand that when the climate changes, it affects things. This fact doesn't establish that mankind is contributing to the change in climate.

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all. The chart posted by QW, data taken from an ice core, shows that CO2 levels have always followed the same cyclical pattern, over hundreds of thousands of years. Your chart is just the sampling which only shows one spike, the most current. Other spikes, as indicated by ice core data, were greater than the current spike. This couldn't have been caused by man, we weren't here.

Details are not his strong point, but thanks for trying.

 

[PredFan]

In fact it has been proven many many times that CO2 levels FOLLOW increases in temperature.

Retard logic on your part.

The fact that something happened in the past does not force it to happen the same way in the future, especially if conditions are different. It's every bit as stupid as saying "Well, species went extinct without human intervention in the past, so extinctions can't be caused by humans now!".

You AGW sheep confuse cause and effect.

Given how hard you suck at basic logic, I'd only worry if you agreed with me. You usually display anti-knowledge. If you say it, the safe money is on it being wrong.

That's the general trait of denialists. It's not so much the science, but the way they fail at general logic and common sense. People who can use valid reasoning simply don't get sucked into the denialist cult.

Ha ha! Do you have even the slightest clue what you are talking about? Judging by your posts, I'd say no.

 

[PredFan]

Thread after thread we have shown proof that the AGW scam is just that. Yet time after time some Climate Change Desciple will post the same non-sense again. It never ends with these fanatics.

 

[PredFan]

Boss -

Yes, volcanoes erupt from time to time. No, they are not the primary driver of climate change.

The CO2 levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years or so,

Oh look the totally debunked Hockey Stick graph. Haven't seen that in a while.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Boss-

Your chart doesn't show that man is contributing to CO2 levels at all

No, it doesn't. What I posted proved to you that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were rising at an unprecedented rate - a point you had asked for information on.

Except it doesn't prove that. In order to prove that the rate is unprecedented you have to compare it to all the previous spikes in CO2 that have occurred before. The problem you now run into is that, although we know that there were previous spikes, we have no data on how fast, or how slow, it took the CO2 to spike in the past.

That might also explain why I, for one, find your arguments laughable.

This is where it is really worth trying to block out the politics and just try and focus on logic.

Like the logic in not using terms like unprecedented without supplying evidence?

We know that humankind has increased our output of CO2 a thousandfold during the past century.

We do? Funny, I don't know that, and I can't find evidence that anyone, other than you, knows that.

And as we just saw, we know that levels of CO2 in the atmoshphere have risen a thousandfols in the past century.

I definitely do not know this one. What I do know is that they have estimated that atmospheric CO2 is approximately 43% higher than it was before the industrial revolution began.

You can see where I am going with this, can't you?

LaLa Land?

Why do you think carbon dioxide is dirty? It's not a pollutant

Then trying breathing it and see what happens.

I breathe it every day, so do you. When it gets up to about 4% is when I start noticing it. I am willing to bet you have never even been in a room where it got to 3%.

Water is not a pollutant either. It is necessary to sustain life,true?

What happens if you drink 25 litres of water in 2 hours?

No one knows, it has never, and will never, be done. It is as physically impossible to do as it is to walk around on the surface of the Moon without artificial life support.

Pleawe note that these are not disputed points. Noone is arguing about this. It is known science, and most posters here will confirm that for you.

I just disputed almost everything you said.

btw. Windpower IS cheaper than coal. Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I totally support nuclear.

Interesting, your chart is based on the costs of selling things in 2017.

Care to explain that one? Do you think they might be factoring in the extra taxes and fees the EPA is planning to add to coal generating power plants?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...



I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.

The vast majority of climate scientists and a very strong majority of all other scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by human GHG emissions. I find that point considerably more significant than the opinions of the public.

Nice of you to post something that I have already demonstrated is not true.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.

Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.

Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.

What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.

Climate science requires zero knowledge of biology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you account for the much larger increases from 200k, 300k, 400k years ago? Were dinosaurs burning fossil fuels? Perhaps microbial life was industrialized and we haven't discovered that? What is your theory on this, I would be interested to know?

Natural cycles. No one has ever denied they existed.

However, we _know_, from the isotope ratio measurements, that the current increase is due to human action. This is 100% certain, not debatable by any rational person. And we also know the current _rate_ of increase is unlike anything seen in the past, which such increases took place over a span of tens of thousands years.

What we know is that the current contribution of man to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot higher than at anytime in the past. What we do not know is exactly how the increased levels of a trace gas is going to affect temperature. What we can surmise from fairly comparing the actual evidence to existing computer models is that temperatures are falling off the lower end of all but the most conservative predictions. We also know that, if this trend continues, even those models will fail in a few years.

That actually means that what we know is the same thing most climate scientists are now saying, we really don't know enough to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will be catastrophic. Even if it is, the Earth, and humans, will survive.

 

[mamooth]

Ha ha! Do you have even the slightest clue what you are talking about? Judging by your posts, I'd say no.

When his whiny BS gets refuted, PredFan pisses himself and runs.

PredFan, your measure has been taken, as you've been found wanting. You tried to bluff your way through by parroting your cult's idiot mantras. But since your cult never told you how to deal with intelligent people who could shred your stupidity, you're left flailing babbling your 'tard theories about the socialist conspiracy in a vain attempt to cover your retreat.

 

[mamooth]

What we know is that the current contribution of man to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot higher than at anytime in the past. What we do not know is exactly how the increased levels of a trace gas is going to affect temperature. What we can surmise from fairly comparing the actual evidence to existing computer models is that temperatures are falling off the lower end of all but the most conservative predictions. We also know that, if

First, you make the major logical blunder of assuming models are the only thing showing the warming.

Second, you get it wrong concerning how accurate the models are. When adjusted for ENSO, the models are very accurate. At best, all you can claim is that the models don't do El Nino/La Nina right now, which everyone already knows. It's just not relevant to the overall warming, which the models have predicted spot-on. And it's not just the models. It's the decades of correct predictions across many fields that has given AGW science such credibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What we know is that the current contribution of man to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot higher than at anytime in the past. What we do not know is exactly how the increased levels of a trace gas is going to affect temperature. What we can surmise from fairly comparing the actual evidence to existing computer models is that temperatures are falling off the lower end of all but the most conservative predictions. We also know that, if

First, you make the major logical blunder of assuming models are the only thing showing the warming.

Second, you get it wrong concerning how accurate the models are. When adjusted for ENSO, the models are very accurate. At best, all you can claim is that the models don't do El Nino/La Nina right now, which everyone already knows. It's just not relevant to the overall warming, which the models have predicted spot-on. And it's not just the models. It's the decades of correct predictions across many fields that has given AGW science such credibility.

First, I made no such blunder. The blunder you made was entirely misreading my post.

Let me explain, the actual, real world, effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the atmosphere are not following the predictions of any model that has been used. They have totally eliminated the models that predicted a large increase in temperature, have fallen outside the range of models that showed a moderate increase, and are about to drop out of even the conservative models that predicted a small, but steady, increase. These models are what the doomsayers used to base their call for action on, but the observed data shows that they are wrong.

In other words, the actual changes are much less drastic that the doomsayers predicted, and scientists are saying that even the conservative models will be wrong unless something happens in the next few years. That does not mean that there is no climate change occurring, it simply means that we cannot predict the temperatures at all.

Let me emphasize a point I made earlier in the thread, so far the most accurate prediction of the temperature came from a scientists that used a logarithmic prediction in 1938.