Global Warming Chickenlittleism

[Geaux4it]

Some things to consider

-Geaux

By: Richard Mills | Fri, Jan 10, 2014

As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information
The nature of the recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is extremely alarmist. The report warns, with a 95% certainty, that global warming is man-made and that the resulting climate change will lead to:

Rising temperatures, drought and increasing desertification

Warming of the oceans and rising sea levels

Shortages of food

Loss of ice sheets & shrinking of glaciers

Increasing intensity and size of storms

There's no doubt our climate is changing, but are the charges the IPCC is making correct? Are the global climate changes we're experiencing man-made or part of earth's natural climate cycle?

Let's take a look under the 'hood' of 'man-made' global warming.

Fact - The Earth's climate has been continuously changing throughout its history. From ice covering large amounts of the globe to interglacial periods where there was ice only at the poles - our climate and biosphere has been in flux for millennia.

"it somehow wasn't front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there's been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

Read the rest of the article here: Global Warming Chickenlittleism | Richard Mills | Safehaven.com

 

[mamooth]

Was there any point to that rambling?

 

[Abraham3]

It gave him an opportunity to show us a picture of someone pointing a gun at us. I guess he hates everyone and would like to murder the human race so he can have the place to himself and there'll be NO chance of anyone telling him what a nincompoop he be.

Mr (Ms?) Go4It. It's more than a little stupid to suggest that human GHG emissions couldn't be warming the Earth because the Earth's climate has changed throughout history (and that's a lot longer than "millenia" unless you happen to be a Young Earth Creationist). Whatever the Earth's climate has ever done, it did so because it was forced to do so. Neither, as was finally agreed to by a upper level denier around here, is it elastic. Nor is it a spontaneous and sentient entity. It is a large, complex and inanimate system undergoing a variety of radiative forcing mechanisms. It's equilibrium state is FULLY determined by the sum of those forcings and the rate of the changes it undergoes is determined by the distance in state space between where it is and the equilibrium state those forcings define. The conclusion that one reaches from the "natural cycle" argument is that the Earth's climate should either be completely stable or should regularly and simply oscillate. It does neither. That ought to tell you something, but I bet it doesn't.

PS: the Confederacy lost.

 

[skookerasbil]

climate = 100% speculation

 

[Old Rocks]

It gave him an opportunity to show us a picture of someone pointing a gun at us. I guess he hates everyone and would like to murder the human race so he can have the place to himself and there'll be NO chance of anyone telling him what a nincompoop he be.

Mr (Ms?) Go4It. It's more than a little stupid to suggest that human GHG emissions couldn't be warming the Earth because the Earth's climate has changed throughout history (and that's a lot longer than "millenia" unless you happen to be a Young Earth Creationist). Whatever the Earth's climate has ever done, it did so because it was forced to do so. Neither, as was finally agreed to by a upper level denier around here, is it elastic. Nor is it a spontaneous and sentient entity. It is a large, complex and inanimate system undergoing a variety of radiative forcing mechanisms. It's equilibrium state is FULLY determined by the sum of those forcings and the rate of the changes it undergoes is determined by the distance in state space between where it is and the equilibrieum state those forcings define. The conclusion that one reaches from the "natural cycle" argument is that the Earth's climate should either be completely stable or should regularly and simply oscillate. It does neither. That ought to tell you something, but I bet it doesn't.

PS: the Confederacy lost.

LOL. You have totally lost the 'Conservatives' on this board at about the third sentence.

To put it more simply, climate changes because there are forces acting on it. The physics of the matter is that whether the forces are created by man's actions, adding more CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, or that of nature, adding more CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the result is the same. In the rapid warming of the PT Extinction Event, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event, the culprit was volcanic trapp lava floods. At present, the culprit is the burning of fossil fuels by mankind. Same result. Rapid warming. Let us hope it does not reach the level of the PT Event.

 

[PredFan]

The question of wether the planet is warming or not is the wrong question. The only question that matters is the question of wether man is having any effect on it. If not then why argue over wether its warming or not?

Men's affect on the climate is something that the Chicken Littles of the AGW scam cannot show. There is no evidence only theories and speculation.

 

[PredFan]

It gave him an opportunity to show us a picture of someone pointing a gun at us. I guess he hates everyone and would like to murder the human race so he can have the place to himself and there'll be NO chance of anyone telling him what a nincompoop he be.

Mr (Ms?) Go4It. It's more than a little stupid to suggest that human GHG emissions couldn't be warming the Earth because the Earth's climate has changed throughout history (and that's a lot longer than "millenia" unless you happen to be a Young Earth Creationist). Whatever the Earth's climate has ever done, it did so because it was forced to do so. Neither, as was finally agreed to by a upper level denier around here, is it elastic. Nor is it a spontaneous and sentient entity. It is a large, complex and inanimate system undergoing a variety of radiative forcing mechanisms. It's equilibrium state is FULLY determined by the sum of those forcings and the rate of the changes it undergoes is determined by the distance in state space between where it is and the equilibrieum state those forcings define. The conclusion that one reaches from the "natural cycle" argument is that the Earth's climate should either be completely stable or should regularly and simply oscillate. It does neither. That ought to tell you something, but I bet it doesn't.

PS: the Confederacy lost.

LOL. You have totally lost the 'Conservatives' on this board at about the third sentence.

To put it more simply, climate changes because there are forces acting on it. The physics of the matter is that whether the forces are created by man's actions, adding more CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, or that of nature, adding more CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere, the result is the same. In the rapid warming of the PT Extinction Event, and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Event, the culprit was volcanic trapp lava floods. At present, the culprit is the burning of fossil fuels by mankind. Same result. Rapid warming. Let us hope it does not reach the level of the PT Event.

Notice the bolded, it is why oldRocks is not to be taken seriously. It's all a political talking point to him and he doesn't care about truth, he only cares about his side winning. You can't get anything rational or intelligent from this level of left wing nut.

 

[Abraham3]

What do you think about Geaux4It's avatar? There are other's here with similar avatars and sigs. They really seem to want to convey to everyone they meet here that they are dangerous and that anyone who engages with them is taking more than the normal risk.

Does that make you think they're someone you should trust? It makes me think they are deeply insecure. Do you think someone like a SEAL or a CIA assassin or a Mafia hit man would use such tactics?

And, just out of curiosity PredFan, what is your avatar photo? I cannot make it out. It looks like a large, black poodle standing on its head. I suspect it would be quite funny if I could see the dang thing.

 

[Geaux4it]

What do you think about Geaux4It's avatar? There are other's here with similar avatars and sigs. They really seem to want to convey to everyone they meet here that they are dangerous and that anyone who engages with them is taking more than the normal risk.

Does that make you think they're someone you should trust? It makes me think they are deeply insecure. Do you think someone like a SEAL or a CIA assassin or a Mafia hit man would use such tactics?

Thanks

 

[Abraham3]

Men's affect on the climate is something that the Chicken Littles of the AGW scam cannot show. There is no evidence only theories and speculation.

Theories are not something that substitutes or replaces evidence. Theories USE evidence or evidence may be used to refute theories or create new ones. And theories are NOT in the same category as speculation. Theories are generally hypotheses with supporting evidence in the form of observations, experiments and successful predictions.

o Observation: Global temperatures have been rising at unprecedented rates since the late 1800s.
o Observation: Humans have been emitting CO2 and other known GHGs at an ever-increasing rate since the beginning of the Industrial revolution
o Observation: the trends of the two phenomena track each other very well, just as they have tracked each other through virtually the entirety of the paleoclimatic record. There is undeniably a relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels which the record and physics tells us is a two-way street.
o The amount of warming from the amount of CO2 emitted is calculable from basic principles. That amount matches the observation.
o NO other potential cause for the observed warming provides sufficient forcing or matches the trends.
o The amount of CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is calculable from records. It matches the observed increase in CO2.
o Isotopic analysis of the atmosphere finds that all the CO2 above 280 ppm was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

Now what were you saying?

 

[Abraham3]

What do you think about Geaux4It's avatar? There are other's here with similar avatars and sigs. They really seem to want to convey to everyone they meet here that they are dangerous and that anyone who engages with them is taking more than the normal risk.

Does that make you think they're someone you should trust? It makes me think they are deeply insecure. Do you think someone like a SEAL or a CIA assassin or a Mafia hit man would use such tactics?

Thanks

Any time. Don't hesitate to ask.

 

[skookerasbil]

People interested in this stuff need to be aware of the stated agenda in progressive manifesto's = use of climate science alarmism to achieve its objectives >>>

A full paper written by Progressives FOR progressives >>>

http://www.cap-press.com/pdf/Schroeder_fm.pdf



Some of the Table Of Contents:


Chapter 3 Progressive Principles 27
Progressive History 27
Address the Source, Not the Victim 28
Do the Best We Can 29
Reduce Ignorance 30
Better Safe than Sorry 31
Be Fair 32
Public Resources Belong to Everyone 33
Progressive Principles Do Not Have Borders 34
Democracy Demands Disclosure 35
v



Chapter 4 Shifting the Blame 41
The Blame Game 41
The Ghost of Coase 42
Manufacturing Consent 44
Ignoring Public Desires 48
Making People Invisible 49
The Progressive Perspective 51
The Progressive Agenda 53
Change Attitudes 53
Let Children Play Outside 53
Do Not Discriminate Against ‘Statistical People’ 53
Prefer Risk Reduction over Risk Avoidance 54
Protect Workers 54
Redress Harm 54
Conclusion 55




Chapter 6 Rescuing Science from Politics 71
The Role of Science 71
Suppression of Science 72
Capturing the Research Agenda 75
The Progressive Perspective 77
The Progressive Agenda 78
Preserve Scientific Freedom 79
Ensure Scientific Transparency 79
Encourage Scientific Honesty 79
Expand Public Funding 80
Use Peer Review Appropriately 80






In other words, the playbook ( one of many ) on how to perpetuate a scam.......how to achieve the agenda using climate science as a vehicle. And Im laughing......the climate crusaders in here think it is really about the environment. These people in this forum are either hopelessly naïve or radical progressive. I think there is a mixture of both in here.




Make no mistake........"climate science" is a brilliant scheme........absolutely brilliant since its proponents can morph the data/events any way they want and look right to the naïve/misinformed of the world. Snow, rain, drought, floods, hurricanes, cold, heat.......all can be manipulate under the "climate change" banner no matter this stuff up or down or sideways. There is NOBODY to hold them to account. Nobody. It is brilliant.


But anybody with half a brain and a smidge of curiosity will find it is what it has always been: complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Abraham3]

It amazes me how far you are willing to go in your attempts to demonstrate that "progressives" have an agenda and ulterior motives for advocating a response to AGW, yet the lot of you COMPLETELY IGNORE the motivation the fossil fuel industry has to do EXACTLY what you have been attempting to do.

 

[mamooth]

As I keep pointing out, denialist loons only have a year or two left before their conspiracy theories look completely ridiculous to everyone. So denialists, what's your retreat plan? You really do need one.

The smarter denialists are already backpedaling to "Well, we're causing warming, but it will be good!" or "Well, it's cheaper to mitigate the damage". The brainless cultists, alas, can't think that far ahead. They can only parrot. It will be interesting to see what the official party line is as to why they got it so completely wrong. I'm sure they'll somehow blame the dirty liberals for forcing them to be stupid and crazy.

 

[skookerasbil]

As I keep pointing out, denialist loons only have a year or two left before their conspiracy theories look completely ridiculous to everyone. So denialists, what's your retreat plan? You really do need one.

The smarter denialists are already backpedaling to "Well, we're causing warming, but it will be good!" or "Well, it's cheaper to mitigate the damage". The brainless cultists, alas, can't think that far ahead. They can only parrot. It will be interesting to see what the official party line is as to why they got it so completely wrong. I'm sure they'll somehow blame the dirty liberals for forcing them to be stupid and crazy.

69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?



Gallup poll: Conservatives outnumber liberals - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com



10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB



OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally | Washington Free Beacon




Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns



What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express

 

[skookerasbil]

The Green Agenda

 

[PredFan]

Men's affect on the climate is something that the Chicken Littles of the AGW scam cannot show. There is no evidence only theories and speculation.

Theories are not something that substitutes or replaces evidence. Theories USE evidence or evidence may be used to refute theories or create new ones. And theories are NOT in the same category as speculation. Theories are generally hypotheses with supporting evidence in the form of observations, experiments and successful predictions.

o Observation: Global temperatures have been rising at unprecedented rates since the late 1800s.
o Observation: Humans have been emitting CO2 and other known GHGs at an ever-increasing rate since the beginning of the Industrial revolution
o Observation: the trends of the two phenomena track each other very well, just as they have tracked each other through virtually the entirety of the paleoclimatic record. There is undeniably a relationship between global temperature and CO2 levels which the record and physics tells us is a two-way street.
o The amount of warming from the amount of CO2 emitted is calculable from basic principles. That amount matches the observation.
o NO other potential cause for the observed warming provides sufficient forcing or matches the trends.
o The amount of CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is calculable from records. It matches the observed increase in CO2.
o Isotopic analysis of the atmosphere finds that all the CO2 above 280 ppm was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

Now what were you saying?

Of course they are all theories. The problem is that politicians are making policies, and ruining businesses based on theories.

I was saying that you cannot prove that man is in any way affecting global warming and you still haven't.

CO2 follows temperature, when the temperature is increased, the atmosphere can hold more CO2.

So yeah, AGW is garbage.

 

[mamooth]

Predfan, your conspiracy theory fails to explain how we observe the outward IR flux squeezing down in the CO2 absorption bands, or how we observe the heat balance of the earth going positive, or ... well, it fails to explain everything we see.

In contrast, AGW science successfully explains all the data we see. That's why the world gives it such credibility. It's been getting everything right for decades. Success counts, and AGW theory has it.

I know your cult told you otherwise, but your cult is clueless. Sorry to have to stage the intervention and break that to you. You've been bamboozled. Step back, take a deep breath, and think. What's more likely, that a vast socialist conspiracy encompasses the whole world, or ... you screwed up?

 

[flacaltenn]

It gave him an opportunity to show us a picture of someone pointing a gun at us. I guess he hates everyone and would like to murder the human race so he can have the place to himself and there'll be NO chance of anyone telling him what a nincompoop he be.

Mr (Ms?) Go4It. It's more than a little stupid to suggest that human GHG emissions couldn't be warming the Earth because the Earth's climate has changed throughout history (and that's a lot longer than "millenia" unless you happen to be a Young Earth Creationist). Whatever the Earth's climate has ever done, it did so because it was forced to do so. Neither, as was finally agreed to by a upper level denier around here, is it elastic. Nor is it a spontaneous and sentient entity. It is a large, complex and inanimate system undergoing a variety of radiative forcing mechanisms. It's equilibrium state is FULLY determined by the sum of those forcings and the rate of the changes it undergoes is determined by the distance in state space between where it is and the equilibrieum state those forcings define. The conclusion that one reaches from the "natural cycle" argument is that the Earth's climate should either be completely stable or should regularly and simply oscillate. It does neither. That ought to tell you something, but I bet it doesn't.

PS: the Confederacy lost.

LOL. You have totally lost the 'Conservatives' on this board at about the third sentence.

.

Nope.. Abe lost all rational folks at the word "gun, and succeeded in validating the OP title by the end of the 2nd sentence. Then you show up to spout the gospel of simplistic science.

This is getting old...

 

[Abraham3]

What's getting old is your lack of involvement. If you don't actually want to talk about the environment, about global warming or the Greenhouse Effect, why, exactly, are you here?