Do republicans realize how alone they are on the issue of global warming?

[thereisnospoon]

Cant find it? Because it seems really funny and if someone suggested warming happens every 10-20 or 30 years that Is funny.

Could you show me who did so I can openly mock them instead of you?

The ICPP models indicate that warming should have occurred over the last 20 years. obeservation however, proved them wrong. You might want to mock them about it.

No they didn't...You cant find it? Did you look under the couch cushion?

That does not dignify a response.

 

[Erand7899]

Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.

I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.

THose scientists do not believe in Creation. Those scientists do not believe the Flood happened. Those scientists do not believe God is in control. What makes you think Mr. Gore is any worse than the rest of them? They all milk issues to milk the public...

It does not matter what Al Gore says. When it comes to the legitimacy of climate change, Al Gore is completley irrelevant.

Nor, does it matter what you say. Science is based on objective evidence, not on what the majority of scientists think may be true. The people that doubt that man has enough effect on the climate to cause any major climate shift, does not mean they are anti-science, it means they are skeptical of the conclusions of climate scientists. Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists.

Even worse, is the idiotic idea that we should cripple our economy, lower our standards of living, and generally sacrifice the good life in an inane drive to fix a problem that may not exist, and would be unfixable, if it did exist. I would opine that the desire to implement some silly attempts at a fix, is the backbone of the attempts to sell climate change to the so called deniers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

THose scientists do not believe in Creation. Those scientists do not believe the Flood happened. Those scientists do not believe God is in control. What makes you think Mr. Gore is any worse than the rest of them? They all milk issues to milk the public...

It does not matter what Al Gore says. When it comes to the legitimacy of climate change, Al Gore is completley irrelevant.

Nor, does it matter what you say. Science is based on objective evidence, not on what the majority of scientists think may be true. The people that doubt that man has enough effect on the climate to cause any major climate shift, does not mean they are anti-science, it means they are skeptical of the conclusions of climate scientists. Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists.

So Scientist base their information on objective evidence and skeptics base their skepticism on skepticism? No wonder we should pay more attention to skeptics...wait, um?

Even worse, is the idiotic idea that we should cripple our economy, lower our standards of living, and generally sacrifice the good life in an inane drive to fix a problem that may not exist, and would be unfixable, if it did exist. I would opine that the desire to implement some silly attempts at a fix, is the backbone of the attempts to sell climate change to the so called deniers.

Whats worst than that is that no one suggests that and you just made it up. That is the worst part of that post

 

[nodoginnafight]

Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists

ahhh - projection. A few oil company and coal mining company employed geologists ramp up some counter talking points and some folks fall over themselves to carry their flag.

Why?

Science certainly doesn't support their rhetoric. Why are some so eager to latch onto them?

Do we want to base decisions on the best information available or not?

Imagine you are on a beach with 98 oceanographers and two astrophysicists. Suddenly the 98 oceanographers start running from the beach saying a tsunami is coming. The two astrophysicists hang back and say, "I'm not so sure. I'd like to see more evidence."

You can hang out on the beach if you want. Just don't blame the rest of us for heading for the hills.

 

[Erand7899]

Know what is humorous about this whole debate?

The denialists are constantly saying that science is on there side, but when one actually brings the articles from peer reviewed journals to the discussion, they immediatly state that all scientists are incompetant frauds that are only after money.

So let me tell you like it is, assholes. We are going to see some big changes in climate and liveability on this small planet in just the next decade. And your grandchildren will curse your willfull ignorance and stupidity.

When you actually know what it is, you can then honestly tell us like it is. Science is on nobody's side, and I am fairly confident that you don't own a crystal ball, or have any more idea of what the future holds than anyone else.

Will the earth continue to heat? Yes, it has done so since the last ice age, and it will continue to do so until it decides to start cooling again. The earth has gone through this cycle tens of thousands of times through its history, and will do so tens of thousands of times in the future. Significant temperature variations have taken place during this current cycle, and we don't have the foggiest idea whether we are experiencing another spike, or whether we are experiencing a long term trend.

Nor, do we know whether a warmer earth will be a boon for mankind, or the end of mankind. We live, we adapt, and we hope for the best. I refuse to worry over any issue that I have absolutely no control over.

 

[westwall]

Googled Vostock Ice Core:



RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

See what I mean by twisting themselves in knots trying to obscure the Vostock data. Then they go and admit that the cycles are long....too long for anything man can do to have an effect...but they gloss right over that. Oh yeah, see that little word there....?..."could".

"Could" allows them to say a lot of things that are meaningless but you all just pant when you see that word. The problem is that is also the word of choice used by psychics. Who have a better track record of prediction just for the record....

The AGW theory is untestable as they have created it...that makes it pseudo-science.

Soo you don't believe science but do...just certain science like the Vostock Ice core findings and what YOU believe they mean....but don't believe what science says it means because...you don't want to?

I am a scientist, geologist to be exact and I follow the scientific method. Look it up some time and show me where climatologists follow it. One of the first things a scientist learns is that correlation does not equal causation.

AGW theory is based almost wholly on correlation. When the correlation stopped 17 years ago, the climatologists instead of modifying their theory, modified the data. That's called scientific fraud. I suggest you look that up too.

 

[Erand7899]

It does not matter what Al Gore says. When it comes to the legitimacy of climate change, Al Gore is completley irrelevant.

Nor, does it matter what you say. Science is based on objective evidence, not on what the majority of scientists think may be true. The people that doubt that man has enough effect on the climate to cause any major climate shift, does not mean they are anti-science, it means they are skeptical of the conclusions of climate scientists. Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists.

So Scientist base their information on objective evidence and skeptics base their skepticism on skepticism? No wonder we should pay more attention to skeptics...wait, um?

Even worse, is the idiotic idea that we should cripple our economy, lower our standards of living, and generally sacrifice the good life in an inane drive to fix a problem that may not exist, and would be unfixable, if it did exist. I would opine that the desire to implement some silly attempts at a fix, is the backbone of the attempts to sell climate change to the so called deniers.

Whats worst than that is that no one suggests that and you just made it up. That is the worst part of that post

Your response is childish. Scientists are skeptics, or they are frauds. You should know little things like that.

I hate to burst your intellectual bubble, but a whole lot of my opinions are made up by me, through my own thought processes, and with the knowledge that I possess. I assume that you wait until someone tells you what your opinions ought to be.

 

[westwall]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — The United Nations is warning that a thawing in the permafrost that covers almost a quarter of the northern hemisphere could "significantly amplify global warming."

The warning came in a U.N. report released as climate talks intensified on Tuesday in Qatar.

The report says the dangers of carbon dioxide and methane emissions from warming permafrost are becoming an emerging issue among climate scientists. These dangers have so far not been factored in projections about future temperature rises.

Representatives from over 200 countries are negotiating a climate deal in Doha that would keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 F) — compared to preindustrial times — by 2100.

The World Bank has projected temperatures to increase by up to 4 degrees C (7.2 F) by then.




UN: Thawing permafrost to cause increased warming

 

[ClosedCaption]

Nor, does it matter what you say. Science is based on objective evidence, not on what the majority of scientists think may be true. The people that doubt that man has enough effect on the climate to cause any major climate shift, does not mean they are anti-science, it means they are skeptical of the conclusions of climate scientists. Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists.

So Scientist base their information on objective evidence and skeptics base their skepticism on skepticism? No wonder we should pay more attention to skeptics...wait, um?

Even worse, is the idiotic idea that we should cripple our economy, lower our standards of living, and generally sacrifice the good life in an inane drive to fix a problem that may not exist, and would be unfixable, if it did exist. I would opine that the desire to implement some silly attempts at a fix, is the backbone of the attempts to sell climate change to the so called deniers.

Whats worst than that is that no one suggests that and you just made it up. That is the worst part of that post

Your response is childish. Scientists are skeptics, or they are frauds. You should know little things like that.

I hate to burst your intellectual bubble, but a whole lot of my opinions are made up by me, through my own thought processes, and with the knowledge that I possess. I assume that you wait until someone tells you what your opinions ought to be.

Wait, so no one wants to

the idiotic idea that we should cripple our economy, lower our standards of living, and generally sacrifice the good life

Basically, its a strawman. I'm actually surprised you admitted to it

 

[ClosedCaption]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — The United Nations is warning that a thawing in the permafrost that covers almost a quarter of the northern hemisphere could "significantly amplify global warming."

The warning came in a U.N. report released as climate talks intensified on Tuesday in Qatar.

The report says the dangers of carbon dioxide and methane emissions from warming permafrost are becoming an emerging issue among climate scientists. These dangers have so far not been factored in projections about future temperature rises.

Representatives from over 200 countries are negotiating a climate deal in Doha that would keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 F) — compared to preindustrial times — by 2100.

The World Bank has projected temperatures to increase by up to 4 degrees C (7.2 F) by then.




UN: Thawing permafrost to cause increased warming

Thanks but this one says 100 years.

 

[BlindBoo]

So where does all that cold figure in? What you describe will certainly cause more rain...but not more snow...which I have had in my yard for the last three days running. It is currently 35 degrees below average right now.

Both rain and snow are products of condensation. It was a very mild winter and so far a very mild spring here in SE Texas this year.

Meanwhile the eastern 2/3rds of the US had lower than normal temps starting around Thanksgiving until 3 weeks ago when we had 2" of snow here in central NC on March 16th.
It is snowing in Denver today for the third consecutive day.
The famous Cherry Blossoms in Washington DC were four weeks late. The Azalea Blooms at Augusta National were not at peak last week.
In upstate NY where my friend lives, the leaves have not emerged on the broad leaf trees. Farmers have not yet plowed their fields for planting in some parts of the upper midwest.
This weekend, temps here in the NC Piedmont are expected to be at least 10* below normal for three days
What are we talking about here? Simple. The Earth's climate is cyclical and subject to anomalies. Completely out of the influence of humans.
You people are running around as though spontaneous combustion is about to occur.
Meanwhile you do NOTHING but offer lip service.
You should have stopped at "blind".

So are you trying to tell me that the rain and snow are not products of condensation? Or how pointing out that fact makes it as though I'm expecting spontaneous combustion to errupt? FYI it was a mild winter in SE Texas meaning it was warmer than normal. The mild spring means that it was cooler than normal cause last year by now we were baking.

You people....
Yoooooou people....

 

[Redfish]

I wish someone would show where anyone suggested that the earth would get warmer every year or 2 or 10 so that I can laugh with Take a step

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — The United Nations is warning that a thawing in the permafrost that covers almost a quarter of the northern hemisphere could "significantly amplify global warming."

The warning came in a U.N. report released as climate talks intensified on Tuesday in Qatar.

The report says the dangers of carbon dioxide and methane emissions from warming permafrost are becoming an emerging issue among climate scientists. These dangers have so far not been factored in projections about future temperature rises.

Representatives from over 200 countries are negotiating a climate deal in Doha that would keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C (3.6 F) — compared to preindustrial times — by 2100.

The World Bank has projected temperatures to increase by up to 4 degrees C (7.2 F) by then.




UN: Thawing permafrost to cause increased warming

and what exactly are these wizards going to do, turn down the volume on the sun?

this is so foolish it sounds like something out of the twilight zone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I am a scientist, geologist to be exact

few oil company and coal mining company employed geologists ramp up some counter talking points and some folks fall over themselves to carry their flag.

Why?

Science certainly doesn't support their rhetoric. Why are some so eager to latch onto them?

Do we want to base decisions on the best information available or not?

Imagine you are on a beach with 98 oceanographers and two astrophysicists. Suddenly the 98 oceanographers start running from the beach saying a tsunami is coming. The two astrophysicists hang back and say, "I'm not so sure. I'd like to see more evidence."

You can hang out on the beach if you want. Just don't blame the rest of us for heading for the hills.

MAN - it's gets tiresome being so right all the time.

 

[konradv]

See what I mean by twisting themselves in knots trying to obscure the Vostock data. Then they go and admit that the cycles are long....too long for anything man can do to have an effect...but they gloss right over that. Oh yeah, see that little word there....?..."could".

"Could" allows them to say a lot of things that are meaningless but you all just pant when you see that word. The problem is that is also the word of choice used by psychics. Who have a better track record of prediction just for the record....

The AGW theory is untestable as they have created it...that makes it pseudo-science.

Soo you don't believe science but do...just certain science like the Vostock Ice core findings and what YOU believe they mean....but don't believe what science says it means because...you don't want to?

I am a scientist, geologist to be exact and I follow the scientific method. Look it up some time and show me where climatologists follow it. One of the first things a scientist learns is that correlation does not equal causation.

AGW theory is based almost wholly on correlation. When the correlation stopped 17 years ago, the climatologists instead of modifying their theory, modified the data. That's called scientific fraud. I suggest you look that up too.

You claim with religious fervor that the Vostok cores prove a 800 year lag in CO2 when THAT'S mere correlation. The known property of CO2's ability to absorb IR radiation is FACT. Given the Law of Conservation of Energy, that absorbed energy has to be going somewhere. Care to venture a theory of your own?

 

[Redfish]

Soo you don't believe science but do...just certain science like the Vostock Ice core findings and what YOU believe they mean....but don't believe what science says it means because...you don't want to?

I am a scientist, geologist to be exact and I follow the scientific method. Look it up some time and show me where climatologists follow it. One of the first things a scientist learns is that correlation does not equal causation.

AGW theory is based almost wholly on correlation. When the correlation stopped 17 years ago, the climatologists instead of modifying their theory, modified the data. That's called scientific fraud. I suggest you look that up too.

You claim with religious fervor that the Vostok cores prove a 800 year lag in CO2 when THAT'S mere correlation. The known property of CO2's ability to absorb IR radiation is FACT. Given the Law of Conservation of Energy, that absorbed energy has to be going somewhere. Care to venture a theory of your own?

CO2 = .039% of the atmosphere--------less than 1/2 of one percent. Plants need it to survive. CO2 is not destroying our planet.

I find it amazing that you leftists continue with this foolishness after being proven wrong thousands of times. your prophets are frauds, your "scientists" are proven data manipulators. But yet, you continue the idiotic rants.

liberalism is clearly a mental disease---this thread proves that hypothesis------but if you need more proof google: defective liberal gene DRD4

 

[Erand7899]

Especially, when those conclusions put gobs of money in the pockets of those climate scientists

ahhh - projection. A few oil company and coal mining company employed geologists ramp up some counter talking points and some folks fall over themselves to carry their flag.

Why?

Science certainly doesn't support their rhetoric. Why are some so eager to latch onto them?

Do we want to base decisions on the best information available or not?

Imagine you are on a beach with 98 oceanographers and two astrophysicists. Suddenly the 98 oceanographers start running from the beach saying a tsunami is coming. The two astrophysicists hang back and say, "I'm not so sure. I'd like to see more evidence."

You can hang out on the beach if you want. Just don't blame the rest of us for heading for the hills.

Why would you assume that scientists that work through government grants are more honest than scientists working for private enterprise?

What you fail to comprehend, is that prior to the global warming alarm, climate scientists had a difficult time getting government grants. After the scare, government grants have flooded in. If those scientists were to reach the conclusion that alarm was not warranted, the funds would dry up again.

You head for the hills anytime that you believe it is the right thing to do. I will do the same when I think it is the right thing to do, and I will live or die with the consequences of my decisions. That is life.

I was stationed at NAS Barber's Point, Hawaii, when the Alaskan earthquake hit, back in the sixties. We were told to expect a tsunami of between twenty and thirty feet. The ramp at the base was seven feet above sea level at high tide, and the water was expected to hit at high tide. While the rest of the base evacuated to high ground, I was ordered to keep the duty section in place and protect the airplanes and hangars. That order defied common sense. No group of mere men can protect anything from thirteen to twenty three feet of flood water. The threat evaporated as time passed, and the expected tsunami was downgraded in size until it actually reached us at twelve inches in height.

However, I had access to two pickup trucks for nineteen men and I had them pointed in the right direction, to carry those nineteen men to safety, if that tsunami actually materialized. I was not going to sacrifice them, or myself, in a vain and stupid attempt to protect inanimate objects.

 

[konradv]

I am a scientist, geologist to be exact and I follow the scientific method. Look it up some time and show me where climatologists follow it. One of the first things a scientist learns is that correlation does not equal causation.

AGW theory is based almost wholly on correlation. When the correlation stopped 17 years ago, the climatologists instead of modifying their theory, modified the data. That's called scientific fraud. I suggest you look that up too.

You claim with religious fervor that the Vostok cores prove a 800 year lag in CO2 when THAT'S mere correlation. The known property of CO2's ability to absorb IR radiation is FACT. Given the Law of Conservation of Energy, that absorbed energy has to be going somewhere. Care to venture a theory of your own?

CO2 = .039% of the atmosphere--------less than 1/2 of one percent. Plants need it to survive. CO2 is not destroying our planet.

I find it amazing that you leftists continue with this foolishness after being proven wrong thousands of times. your prophets are frauds, your "scientists" are proven data manipulators. But yet, you continue the idiotic rants.

liberalism is clearly a mental disease---this thread proves that hypothesis------but if you need more proof google: defective liberal gene DRD4

Once again you're proving you don't understand the science. It's not the absolute value that's important, it's the increase over the historical average, 30-40%. Your argument is equivalent to saying, since medicines are taken in such small dosages compared to your total body weight, they can't possibly work.

 

[westwall]

Cant find it? Because it seems really funny and if someone suggested warming happens every 10-20 or 30 years that Is funny.

Could you show me who did so I can openly mock them instead of you?

The ICPP models indicate that warming should have occurred over the last 20 years. obeservation however, proved them wrong. You might want to mock them about it.

No they didn't...You cant find it? Did you look under the couch cushion?

Poor closedmindedcaption. Your religion is collapsing all around you and the best you can do is say "hunh uhhhhhhh".


"Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface.

By measuring changes in winds, rather than relying upon problematic temperature measurements, Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models.

“I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts that the atmosphere really has been warming up more or less as we expect, due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide,” Sherwood said."



Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why would you assume that scientists that work through government grants are more honest than scientists working for private enterprise?

ad verecundiam logical fallacy

If I want to know about rocks, I'll ask a geologist
If I want to know about climate, I'll ask a climatologist

 

[Redfish]

You claim with religious fervor that the Vostok cores prove a 800 year lag in CO2 when THAT'S mere correlation. The known property of CO2's ability to absorb IR radiation is FACT. Given the Law of Conservation of Energy, that absorbed energy has to be going somewhere. Care to venture a theory of your own?

CO2 = .039% of the atmosphere--------less than 1/2 of one percent. Plants need it to survive. CO2 is not destroying our planet.

I find it amazing that you leftists continue with this foolishness after being proven wrong thousands of times. your prophets are frauds, your "scientists" are proven data manipulators. But yet, you continue the idiotic rants.

liberalism is clearly a mental disease---this thread proves that hypothesis------but if you need more proof google: defective liberal gene DRD4

Once again you're proving you don't understand the science. It's not the absolute value that's important, it's the increase over the historical average, 30-40%. Your argument is equivalent to saying, since medicines are taken in such small dosages compared to your total body weight, they can't possibly work.

do you really believe that a tiny increase in a gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere will change the climate of the planet?

let me ask you something. have you ever flown across the pacific or atlantic oceans?, the continent of africa or south america? asia from moscow to Hong Kong?

I have, and what you realize is that man's footprint on earth is tiny compared to the entire surface of the earth. we are a hair on a gnat on an elephants ass.

To think that man could do anything to change the climate of the planet is amazingly naive and frankly ignorant.