Climate Change: Hoax/Real? Depends on YOUR Source

[gnarlylove]

Military bases with large stores of decaying munitions.

Cleanup of numerous arsenals, such as Oak Ridge.

Cleanup of the environmental train wreck that is the TVA.

Detecting a pattern here?

The Worst Polluter on Earth Is... The U.S. Federal Government

I see what you are driving at: the govy-ment is bad.

I'm glad we can agree old military waste needs addressing and I definitely see they pattern: they aren't very good at cleaning. But you know this is not the only environmental concerns. I mentioned the hog piss. The West Virgina chemical spill which is hop skip and a jump from my village is still reeking havoc on the community as I hear on their nightly news.

Now I'm not claiming we should cease all human activity in order to stop having an environmental impact. That is clearly stupid and a strawman.

My point is humanity is hurting humanity through our own choices, typically involving profits over people as in the case of the crude MCHM leak. As our activity further damages the environment, we leave little room for restoration. This means we need to fundamentally evaluate how we approach nature and living. All levels of civilization must address this concern unless we want global problems down the road. Impacts are already felt by businesses (per Coca Cola and Puma etc) and its only a matter of time before global economies began to suffer due to environmental disasters. This definitely includes government but it also involves individual action too.

 

[gnarlylove]

GnarlyOne... Up to you bud.. You started this thread..

If you'd rather do another topic -- and push a different cause --- have at it..
Abraham doesn't think that AGW has sucked the ever-living-daylights out of enviro causes..

But this forum is PROOF that it has.. I'd say a floating pile of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas is something we should address BEFORE it ends up in Long Beach harbor.. THAT gets maybe a dozen posts.. Polling climate scientists gets THOUSANDS...

u weren't kidding FCT. my comments that focused the discussion also shut it down. damn, i got burned! too bad the fact remains, we are doing little to reverse our climate change and degradation.

to personally combat climate change i'm going to start throwing seeds on concrete sidewalks and roads, maybe something will grow lol JK dumb mutha fucka

 

[whitehall]

You gotta wonder, are the (alleged) scientists who promote the religion of "global warming" too dumb to realize that climate changes all the time? The Sahara desert was once a jungle. Republicans haven't been around long enough to blame that on on but low information lefties probably believe "American decadence" caused it. Global Warming has to be a religion or (alleged) scientists and low information lefties would trust their senses and look around as southern Louisiana is covered with snow this week. The American middle class struggles to keep warm this winter while elitist "scientists" try to tell (only) Americans that their decadence is the root cause of climate change. The world is upside down in the liberal mind.

 

[flacaltenn]

GnarlyOne... Up to you bud.. You started this thread..

If you'd rather do another topic -- and push a different cause --- have at it..
Abraham doesn't think that AGW has sucked the ever-living-daylights out of enviro causes..

But this forum is PROOF that it has.. I'd say a floating pile of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas is something we should address BEFORE it ends up in Long Beach harbor.. THAT gets maybe a dozen posts.. Polling climate scientists gets THOUSANDS...

u weren't kidding FCT. my comments that focused the discussion also shut it down. damn, i got burned! too bad the fact remains, we are doing little to reverse our climate change and degradation.

to personally combat climate change i'm going to start throwing seeds on concrete sidewalks and roads, maybe something will grow lol JK dumb mutha fucka

Best way to get traction is to NOT lump all these issues in the same box of whine.. NOTHING gets done that way. And you wont persuade others to your cause when you confuse CO2 with pollution on purpose (for example). You will only recruit the most lazy, stupid and ineffective folks to the cause.

To arrest that mass of Japan debris in the Pacific or clean up the nuclear weapons mess takes DIFFERENT TEAMS and tactics.. All is possible if you FOCUS.. That's what good leadership and a little science/engineering will do for ya bud..

BTW: I'm not in the least worried about plastics "leaching soup" into the ocean. The plastic itself is the physical problem.. There's no way you could convince me that plastics decomposing creates a large "poison" issue in the ocean..

We just need to clean up the junk..
Saw a photo of Philipines fishermen collecting floating plastic for recycling. They make a pittance loading their paddleboats with it. SOMEONE should give a vessel for lease that is more efficient for salvaging ocean plastic. The labor and the economics would take care of themselves. WE can't do the work because if the govt designed the system, the trash would cost $11,000 per pound.. But working with entreprenuers in NEEDY regions -- we could give them the tools to do stuff like this..

Larger scale "garbage trawling" needs to be designed to clean something like the Tsunami debris field. And it needs an economic incentive to happen. I believe you could get that if the labor was cheap enough and the fuel for doing this came cheaply. Perhaps some island nation want to recycle that mess as "biomass" fuel or go into the plastics recycling biz..

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does not drive climate, never has.

 

[Abraham3]

Facts are fatal to your bullshit cult, hence you're forced to call them a conspiracy. This is basic stuff, old science. From Harries 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature

There's a problem here.. The chart you posted is the right idea for resolving it..
But it comes from skepticalscience and has been CLEANED of pertinent info that I posted in the original chart..

Important to look at the trend line for these "fingerprints".. And what I see there is taken out of context and could be another SkS crayon job..

Yeah, the original, prior to the SS clean up showed actual OLR, the's model predictions, and the difference between the two if I remember correctly. As I recall, the graphs from the earlier years, looked just like the graphs from later years....no visible difference....evidence that the CO2 absorption bands were already full in the 70s. Funny thing is that mamooth thinks she debunked something with that bit of fraud.

The abstract:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

Top of page
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
*********************************************************************
So, we're to assume that you're armchair analysis is superior to that of the PhDs that actually did the research and wrote and published the peer reviewed study.

Got it.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....my question is.......does it matter??


Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--
January 29, 2014 - 5:26 PM

Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02% Before Obama | CNS News

















Either way........its not mattering!!

 

[badbob85037]

Many climate change skeptics and advocates believe each other's sources are wrong. With such an impasse, deniers point to the fact they "are winning the debate." But having the majority opinion does not make it correct. Many instances of bad science like Flat Earth and Geocentric ideas were widespread but undoubtedly false in hindsight. I'm not saying climate change skeptics are wrong per se, just that pointing to majority opinion is a non-argument riddled with fallacy and disease.

So what are the SOURCES REALLY telling us?

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

Abstract
The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying
the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by
manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial
means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between
conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published
through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number
of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and
the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of
American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that
an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific
training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review,
allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then
amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

Take this peer reviewed article along with:
Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of likely projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007)....

There was wide agreement that a large percentage of species will go extinct in response to the combined effects of climate change and other causes over the next 100 years, but those respondents with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 17% and 16%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge estimated a mean of 23%. There was also wide agreement among the respondents that a large percentage of species would alter their geographic ranges because of climate change over the next 100 years, but those with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 46% or 44%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses estimated a mean of 59% or 62% of species, respectively.

Conclusions:
Our survey of 2329 environmental biologists is, to our knowledge, the largest systematic survey of expert opinion about climate change and its impacts...The respondents at all levels of expertise offered fairly conservative estimates of future climate change...Still, the lower values revealed in this survey represent an alarmingly large change.

So in summary, with a overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Environmental Biologists expecting a 3.4C climate change over the next 100 years coupled with 90% skeptic material undergoing no rigorous peer review process, we can confidently say climate change skeptics and advocates live in separate worlds.

Skeptics live in the world were you can claim doubt as long as your don't get serious about your research and credibility. Remain at the surface for jabs and personal attacks, these stratagems are typically more satisfying and credible to the skeptic to begin with.

Advocates for climate change recognize the legitimacy of the majority of experts and dismiss skeptics sources because they lack peer-review credibility, among other reasons. Especially given media slant and a personal mission to isolate focus towards climate change denial can easily produce a rapidly growing tumor of ignorance. Fortunately for the skeptic it is not malignant. It's benign because climate change won't greatly affect the biota till they are dead and gone and inaction leads to them having no action. Their children and grandchildren remain in question but they themselves have NO NEED to seek peer-reviewed science that is laborious to read. Thus the Cato Institute among dozens of other highly funded POLICY institutes frame the debate in an easy to digest manner that focuses on money incentives and casting doubt--not peer review science. So since neither skeptic nor advocate can meet halfway, the last remaining question is:

What if climate change skeptics are wrong?

...if advocates are wrong, another century of petroleum summer....if skeptics are wrong, potentially the greatest risk to humanity's prosperity that has ever been dismissed.

If these predictions came true Algore would be a billion dollars richer and we would have drown or grown gills It's not Global Warming it's Summer. Only ones way to stupid to ever realize they will never be ignorant. buy into this. Hell these clowns were calling biden president. What's with that?

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP misses the big picture....and the only thing that matters.

1) What do the voters think?

2) What are the energy policy makers doing?

Those are the only material ?'s to answer. The rest is all philosophy.

So....what do we know?

We know voters don't care about climate change and policy makers in energy don't care about the science. The evidence on both are indisputable.

Philosophy is ghey

That means the skeptics win by default.

 

[Crick]

I noted elsewhere that this was not an argument for climate change per se. But is the only question left that can spark thoughtful debate. Otherwise, we are at an impasse of source A versus source Z.

Your question is the philosophical and logical fallacy known as Pascal's Wager.

All the text brick posts in the world won't change that.

Pascal's Wager is false because his motives would be improper and a god would know that. That does not apply to this scenario. Here we simply have safe or sorry. But, of course, the denialists claim that (attempting) fighting global warming will destroy the economy of nations that make the effort. So, they have a different sorry to whine about. The real distinction to be made about posts was the observation that one group's consists of non-scientific, emotional opinions mixed with a lot of jingoism and ethnic bias while the other group has the near universal opinion of the entire world's set of published climate scientists (scientists who have published peer reviewed articles on our climate and global warming.

PS, this is an antique thread. The second post up (as write this) is my former self (Abraham3) from 2012.