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

[ClosedCaption]

Hey do you like animals? Well you're a hypocrite if you eat or wear them or else you don't really like them at all

This is the logic of the Right, Almost as stupid as PETA

 

[konradv]

Are you retarded?

The mainstream Peer pressure reviewed scientific community agree with these findings. Along with a 20 year "stall" in temperature increases. The models are wrong. Period. Ocean acidification is completely overblown, the same as temperature increases and the effects. You people just keep on saying that its real and find any excuse possible to continue your belief in failed scientific models.

No temp increases in 20 years while CO2 emissions skyrocket. Check
Marginal, if not completely irrelevant ocean acidification due to carbon sink. Check
Observation deviating from computer models across the board. Check

Don't get mad because your belief system predictions are falling apart to real world observations. You're gullible.

Natural climate cycles perfectly explain a stall. CO2 levels have been going up, but to call them skyrocketing is just hyperbole to bolster your position. What you need to explain is by what mechanism would added trapped energy be dissipated and not contribute to warming should CO2 continue to rise and the current climate cycle reverses itself.

Grasping for straws, I see.

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first showed in the 1890s how man-made carbon dioxide, from coal for instance, traps heat in the atmosphere. Many of the exact effects are still unknown.

Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.

How is that grasping at straws? It's the same logic I've used since Day 1 on the board. Explain to me what happens to added absorbed energy as CO2 rises and I'll listen. Cherry-picked quotes and snide remarks don't do it for me. That requires hard data and logic. The most significant data in my book are the levels of CO2 and the other GHGs. One can argue all day whether we've seen significant warming as of yet, but given the Law of Conservation of Energy, a continued rise makes a significant rise in temps inevitable.

 

[konradv]

And I dont need to explain anything. I'm not the one running around talking about the sky is falling if we dont redistribute the wealth of the world. Remember, its not about environmental policy, it's about economic/government policies according to the ICPP.

So you're conceding the scientific questions? I'm not and I'm not here to defend any particular organization. I'm just here discussing the science as I see it. Until you can explain what happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2, I'm going to go with the Law of Conservation of Energy and assume it's going to have some effect on temps. We can discuss how high they'll go and how long it will take, but you haven't made a dent in the "if".

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's why the media and governments continue to push anything they can as Goebbel's Warming.

Rain? AGW
Snow? AGW
Wind? AGW
Drought? AGW
Warm day? AGW
Cold day? AGW

It's a load of pure bullshit and only the most gullible retards are buying it.

I buy that adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the amount of IR trapped and re-emitted back towards earth. In light of the Law of Conservation of Energy, how would that not tend to increase temps? It's simple logic that no amount of snide remarks begins to answer, much less debunk.

CO2 also traps water vapor which creates clouds which reflect the sun's energy back out into the upper atmosphere. This REDUCES the surface temperature. So there are conflicting results of the ultra minute ( as measured) increased amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

 

[konradv]

That's why the media and governments continue to push anything they can as Goebbel's Warming.

Rain? AGW
Snow? AGW
Wind? AGW
Drought? AGW
Warm day? AGW
Cold day? AGW

It's a load of pure bullshit and only the most gullible retards are buying it.

I buy that adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the amount of IR trapped and re-emitted back towards earth. In light of the Law of Conservation of Energy, how would that not tend to increase temps? It's simple logic that no amount of snide remarks begins to answer, much less debunk.

CO2 also traps water vapor which creates clouds which reflect the sun's energy back out into the upper atmosphere. This REDUCES the surface temperature. So there are conflicting results of the ultra minute ( as measured) increased amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

CO2 traps water vapor? I think you need to study up before posting. More water vapor is the result of higher temps, an AGW prediction. That WOULD mean more clouds reflecting sunlight back into space. More clouds, however, means more variable weather, another AGW prediction! You seem to be bleeping over the fact that, while clouds would buffer the heating capacity of the added CO2, to get them you'd have to have more heat in the first place!

 

[thereisnospoon]

And I dont need to explain anything. I'm not the one running around talking about the sky is falling if we dont redistribute the wealth of the world. Remember, its not about environmental policy, it's about economic/government policies according to the ICPP.

So you're conceding the scientific questions? I'm not and I'm not here to defend any particular organization. I'm just here discussing the science as I see it. Until you can explain what happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2, I'm going to go with the Law of Conservation of Energy and assume it's going to have some effect on temps. We can discuss how high they'll go and how long it will take, but you haven't made a dent in the "if".

Nothing is being conceded. The issue is politically motivated. Period.
This is proved out by the lack of remedies for any actual pollution. The remedies are additional taxation, transfer payments and crushing regulations.
You libs whine and cry about jobs going overseas.
Just wait. Should this insanity come to fruition, this country will bleed jobs at a dizzying pace.

 

[konradv]

And I dont need to explain anything. I'm not the one running around talking about the sky is falling if we dont redistribute the wealth of the world. Remember, its not about environmental policy, it's about economic/government policies according to the ICPP.

So you're conceding the scientific questions? I'm not and I'm not here to defend any particular organization. I'm just here discussing the science as I see it. Until you can explain what happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2, I'm going to go with the Law of Conservation of Energy and assume it's going to have some effect on temps. We can discuss how high they'll go and how long it will take, but you haven't made a dent in the "if".

Nothing is being conceded. The issue is politically motivated. Period.
This is proved out by the lack of remedies for any actual pollution. The remedies are additional taxation, transfer payments and crushing regulations.
You libs whine and cry about jobs going overseas.
Just wait. Should this insanity come to fruition, this country will bleed jobs at a dizzying pace.

I agree that there's political motivation, just not where it's coming from. Not from me. I'm just trying to explain the science, while most deniers give up and try to explain it all as a political exercise.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A crack about a meth lab certainly sounds trollish to me, lets call it 1 and 1.

You can call it whatever you like. You'd still be wrong.

Fine we'll agree to disagree, but a crack about a meth lab adds zero to the discussion of AGW. Just more proof that the deniers are all about the politics, having already conceded the scientific debate.

What debate? It's been shown time after time that man-made global warming is a hoax.

A Time magazine article from June 24, 1974, “Another Ice Age,” showed that there was no progressive/globalist political agenda behind it when it correctly identified the real cause of the changing climate:

“Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth’s surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth’s tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere–thereby altering the earth’s climate.”

They also had a different take on human activity and the greenhouse effect back then:

“Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.”

These days they’re saying our emissions are trapping the sun’s heat. Back then, they were saying the same emissions were blocking the heat from reaching us in the first place.

Read more at How to kill the manmade global warming hoax

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you're conceding the scientific questions? I'm not and I'm not here to defend any particular organization. I'm just here discussing the science as I see it. Until you can explain what happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2, I'm going to go with the Law of Conservation of Energy and assume it's going to have some effect on temps. We can discuss how high they'll go and how long it will take, but you haven't made a dent in the "if".

Nothing is being conceded. The issue is politically motivated. Period.
This is proved out by the lack of remedies for any actual pollution. The remedies are additional taxation, transfer payments and crushing regulations.
You libs whine and cry about jobs going overseas.
Just wait. Should this insanity come to fruition, this country will bleed jobs at a dizzying pace.

I agree that there's political motivation, just not where it's coming from. Not from me. I'm just trying to explain the science, while most deniers give up and try to explain it all as a political exercise.

You as a private citizen do not make policy. You are just drinking the Kool-Aid
I have just as much access to counter climate change stuff as you do supporting it.
The fact that certain scientists were caught excluding certain data and altering other data, indicates a drive to a political end.
Additionally, the fact that many of the scientists that worked on the various studies are now coming out publicly against the very things they reported.
Lastly, the so called remedies are not remedies at all. There are NO plans to reduce any CO2 but merely to use schemes such as Cap and Trade( Knee cap and Tax) to move the chess pieces around the board. All of the climate change schemes accomplish one thing. Loss of jobs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In his peer reviewed thesis, "Earth in the Balance" Al Gore said water vapor is the main driver of AGW

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And I dont need to explain anything. I'm not the one running around talking about the sky is falling if we dont redistribute the wealth of the world. Remember, its not about environmental policy, it's about economic/government policies according to the ICPP.

So you're conceding the scientific questions? I'm not and I'm not here to defend any particular organization. I'm just here discussing the science as I see it. Until you can explain what happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2, I'm going to go with the Law of Conservation of Energy and assume it's going to have some effect on temps. We can discuss how high they'll go and how long it will take, but you haven't made a dent in the "if".

What happens to added energy absorbed by added CO2? While the law of conservation may apply somewhat, there are other variables such as carbon sinks. What you're implying is that increased CO2 increases temperature in theory, in observation other things are happening that defy the models used to determine the predictions. Someone is wrong, and it isn't our lying eyes.

 

[BlindBoo]

I buy that adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the amount of IR trapped and re-emitted back towards earth. In light of the Law of Conservation of Energy, how would that not tend to increase temps? It's simple logic that no amount of snide remarks begins to answer, much less debunk.

CO2 also traps water vapor which creates clouds which reflect the sun's energy back out into the upper atmosphere. This REDUCES the surface temperature. So there are conflicting results of the ultra minute ( as measured) increased amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

CO2 traps water vapor? I think you need to study up before posting. More water vapor is the result of higher temps, an AGW prediction. That WOULD mean more clouds reflecting sunlight back into space. More clouds, however, means more variable weather, another AGW prediction! You seem to be bleeping over the fact that, while clouds would buffer the heating capacity of the added CO2, to get them you'd have to have more heat in the first place!

Generally the water cycle is a zero sum game. The amount of heat it takes to evaporate the water is given back when the water condenses.

I don't believe it is a buffer. They extra heat stays trapped.

But the whole idea that warming hasn't taken place in 20 years is absurd. Some years it's gone down, other years it's gone up. Peaks and valleys, not a straight line graph. The current Solar Cycle (24) has produces half as many sun-spots than the previous Cycle. I think the best indcator is the amount of melt in the artic during the summer months.

 

[Freewill]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

 

[Billy000]

It's a funny discussion because there really is climate change. The climate/earth have been changing forever. Suddenly it's all man's fault and water vapor and CO2 are causing a warming of the planet that stopped almost 20 years ago.

And we're suppose to believe that it's happening anyway because everything that happens in weather, climate, etc is because of this "phenom".

I don't understand why you think you are such an authority on this topic. There are thousand of peer reviewed studies that are evidence for made made climate change. Why should I take anything you say seriously?

Yes, the evidence is in the failed computer model generated predictions. They fail over and over again. It's not me you need to believe, in fact, I would prefer belief be left out of it. But that's really the whoel argument in this political science psy-op. BELIEF.

The main stream concensus admits that the 20 year no warming observation is there "and is good". that observation is deviating from prediction in all models adn yet, they refuse to even LOOK at their own models. Why? I'll tell you why, because this is about politics and agenda. it doesn't need to be real, viable science. it needs to squash any other narrative and maintain its current one for the sake of political discourse.

No matter what evidence is presented to discount, or at least drastically damage the consensus, the alarmists will never budge and will continue to make excuses to perpetuate validity in the face of failure.

You are making pure conjecture. Think about it. How can this be a politically motivated initiative when the rest of the world's scientists support the theory. Your thinking on this is so small scale.

 

[Redfish]

I don't understand why you think you are such an authority on this topic. There are thousand of peer reviewed studies that are evidence for made made climate change. Why should I take anything you say seriously?

Yes, the evidence is in the failed computer model generated predictions. They fail over and over again. It's not me you need to believe, in fact, I would prefer belief be left out of it. But that's really the whoel argument in this political science psy-op. BELIEF.

The main stream concensus admits that the 20 year no warming observation is there "and is good". that observation is deviating from prediction in all models adn yet, they refuse to even LOOK at their own models. Why? I'll tell you why, because this is about politics and agenda. it doesn't need to be real, viable science. it needs to squash any other narrative and maintain its current one for the sake of political discourse.

No matter what evidence is presented to discount, or at least drastically damage the consensus, the alarmists will never budge and will continue to make excuses to perpetuate validity in the face of failure.

You are making pure conjecture. Think about it. How can this be a politically motivated initiative when the rest of the world's scientists support the theory. Your thinking on this is so small scale.

they don't.

 

[Billy000]

Yes, the evidence is in the failed computer model generated predictions. They fail over and over again. It's not me you need to believe, in fact, I would prefer belief be left out of it. But that's really the whoel argument in this political science psy-op. BELIEF.

The main stream concensus admits that the 20 year no warming observation is there "and is good". that observation is deviating from prediction in all models adn yet, they refuse to even LOOK at their own models. Why? I'll tell you why, because this is about politics and agenda. it doesn't need to be real, viable science. it needs to squash any other narrative and maintain its current one for the sake of political discourse.

No matter what evidence is presented to discount, or at least drastically damage the consensus, the alarmists will never budge and will continue to make excuses to perpetuate validity in the face of failure.

You are making pure conjecture. Think about it. How can this be a politically motivated initiative when the rest of the world's scientists support the theory. Your thinking on this is so small scale.

they don't.

Prove it.

 

[Billy000]

You act as though just because the scientific community can't fully understand it that somehow undermines the integrity of the idea. It doesn't. Plus, it isn't about "warming". It's about climate irregularity. I shouldn't have said "global warming" in this post. It's an outdated, oversimplication of the phenomenon.

The very first post exposed your conspiracy for the bullshit it is and your response?

Please wait while I move the goal posts.

Hahaha

Moron

Seriously, how old are you? If you say anything above 17 I'm not going to believe you. You have the maturity of a child.

Okay so because the name has changed, that somehow means the entire thing is a sham? Think about these things.

 

[Redfish]

You are making pure conjecture. Think about it. How can this be a politically motivated initiative when the rest of the world's scientists support the theory. Your thinking on this is so small scale.

they don't.

Prove it.

at best, or worst, the scientific community is now 50/50 on AGW. The only consensus is in the mind of you leftards who think that you can punish evil rich people by making fuel expensive------and the truth is that high fuel costs punish the poor and middle classes.

 

[Billy000]

they don't.

Prove it.

at best, or worst, the scientific community is now 50/50 on AGW. The only consensus is in the mind of you leftards who think that you can punish evil rich people by making fuel expensive------and the truth is that high fuel costs punish the poor and middle classes.

50/50? You are just making shit up. When it comes to peer reviewed research (the most reliable kind), there are thousands that support the theory. Only a couple dozen dispute it.

 

[Redfish]

Prove it.

at best, or worst, the scientific community is now 50/50 on AGW. The only consensus is in the mind of you leftards who think that you can punish evil rich people by making fuel expensive------and the truth is that high fuel costs punish the poor and middle classes.

50/50? You are just making shit up. When it comes to peer reviewed research (the most reliable kind), there are thousands that support the theory. Only a couple dozen dispute it.

when the "peers" are from the same think tank and have the same agenda. Peer review is nothing but partisan bullshit.

But since you support ending the use of oil, coal, and natural gas. What fuel do you propose replacing them with?

what fuel is available in the quantities necessary to power an 18 wheeler across the country? what fuel is available to replace coal in all the coal fired power plants? and which of those plants will run on this magic fuel?

what fuel will power trains, planes and ships to deliver food and everything else that humans need across oceans and continents?

Tell us, or STFU.