Global Warming: A 98% Consensus Of Nothing

[SSDD]

Or how about the massive bird kill caused by windmills the world over? They kill hundreds of thousands of birds (some of which are endangered raptors) and they have managed to get a complete pass from the government for the birds they kill. If a fossil fuel company kills a bird there is hell to pay. Why are "green" companies not held to the same standards?

Don't forget about the incredible numbers of bats that are dying in windmills also.

 

[editec]

So now that the debate about climate change is fading, because that fact is beciming increasingly obvious, now the deniers want to debate about what scientists REALLY think?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

John Heywood​

 

[SSDD]

So now that the debate about climate change is fading, because that fact is beciming increasingly obvious, now the deniers want to debate about what scientists REALLY think?

The reason the debate is fading, and what is obvious is that temperatures have been flat or slightly decreasing for some 16 years now while CO2 levels have continued to climb. The debate now is over the obvious scam that climate science and politics has perpetrated.

I guess you believe that global non warming caused sandy?

 

[Old Rocks]

it is too bad that people like AlexWA can't tell the difference between pollution and CO2.

Ian I fully understand that Co2 is a natural gas that we all emit every time we breath as well as plants. I also fully understand that other gases like methane are also natural gasses emitted by plants and various ecosystems that all goes into the atmosphere. The connection is that the Earth can balance the natural emission of various gasses such as Co2 and methane, it has for billions of years, however, when we as human beings create addition sources of these gasses and emissions and overwhelm and clog our atmosphere by allowing millions upon millions of extra tons of these gases to interact with our atmosphere it becomes pollution. From that pollution of excess gas it makes it much more difficult for these gases to escape, which then can cause a warming trend, i.e. a greenhouse effect.

I am not blind to the fact that C02 and other natural gasses can not be eliminated since they are natural and released from the very plants and ecosystems that sustain life on this planet. But i am not blind at all to the fact that we pump millions of tons of excess gasses and pollutants into our atmosphere every single day. To deny that this has a negative affect on our planet and can cause heat to be trapped between us and the atmosphere is irresponsible in my opinion.

The problem with your contention is it has never been proven in a lab experiment and natural CO2 production accounts for 95% of the total CO2 budget of the planet. Mankind contributes a vanishingly small amount of CO2.

Furthermore it is proven that the higher the CO2 levels the better plants grow to use the CO2 to grow etc. etc. etc. There has never yet been a single bit of empirical data that shows CO2 to be a bad thing.

Everything you are concerned about is generated ONLY in computer models. The real world has shown those models to be severly lacking and they have been shown repeatedly to have no basis in relity.

Quite on the contrary, the absorption spectra in infrared of CO2 has been public knowledge for a long time.

UV-VIS Absorption Spectra of Gaseous Molecules and Radicals: Catalogue Spectra

And the complexity of the effects of increasing the amount of GHGs have also been known for a long time.

http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/esys10/text_chapters/The_Earth_System_Chapter_3.pdf

Now our contribution to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is not 5%, but 40%. That represents an increase in energy of almost 1.8 watts/meter^2.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The increase in CH4 has been 250%, which represents 0.50 W/m^2.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The increase in extreme weather events of the past three years are not computer generated models.

Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs-Insurance Networking News

“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “We need a national policy related to climate and weather.”

Property and casualty insurers in the United States experienced an estimated $44 billion in losses last year when hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes and other natural disasters were more severe, longer, more frequent and less predictable than in the past.

According to Swiss Re, the average weather-related insurance industry loss in the U.S. was about $3 billion a year in the 1980s compared to approximately $20 billion annually by the end of the past decade.
..................................................................................................................

What has been shown to have no basis in reality is the continued insistance that nothing is changing, or, if it is, it is all natural. Both lies have been shown repeatedly to be just that. From alpine glaciers to Arctic Sea Ice, we are seeing rapid change due to a warming world. A change that is having measureable affects.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

Quite on the contrary, the absorption spectra in infrared of CO2 has been public knowledge for a long time.

Tell me, what do you believe the CO2 molecule does with the absorbed IR other than immediately emit it?

And the complexity of the effects of increasing the amount of GHGs have also been known for a long time.

Actually, they haven't as evidenced by the miserable failure of climate models.

The increase in extreme weather events of the past three years are not computer generated models.

Cool thought, except that extreme weather events are on the decrease and the fact is that there have been fewer "extreme" weather events since 2000 than in any recorded period. Here is yet another published paper, this one in Nature Geoscience that finds warmer weather results in fewer "extreme" weather events.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1619.html

Here is a recent paper published in geophysical research finding that models grossly underestimate the cooling effect of clouds.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053153.shtml

Here is one recently published in Nature finding that the models are wrong with regard to predictions of drought.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7416/full/nature11377.html

Here is one recently published in the proceedings of the national academy finding that solar activity at the end of the 20th century was the highest it had been in over 9000 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341045/

And it goes on and on. More and more papers are getting past the temple gatekeepers and being published. These papers are exposing the gross flaws and inadequecy of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.



You really are a wacko aren't you? Do you fret over this stuff in your spare time or in every waking moment? How often do you froth at the mouth over this and spew spittle at your computer monitor from screaming at skeptics?


By the way, it is laughable that anyone would offer up the statements from liability insurance companies on extreme weather or any other incident which they are likely to have to write checks for. It is like asking tobacco companies to guide official policy on smoking.

 

[IanC]

Hey Old Rocks- your side's blockade of the big peer reviewed journals seems to be crumbling. Must make you sad.

 

[SSDD]

Hey Old Rocks- your side's blockade of the big peer reviewed journals seems to be crumbling. Must make you sad.

A literal ocean of real evidence falsifying the unfalsifiable hypothesis can only be held back for so long. When the greatest minds in the world start abandoning scientific societies because of blatantly unscientific practices even political hacks such as those in charge must begin to see the writing on the wall.