Global Warming Pie Chart

[Mustang]

Depotoo -



Yes, this has been the subject of much humour and entertainment here before!

I suggest you do a little research into how many of the names on the "report" still want to be part of it, and then update your post.

I am amazed again how gullible people are!

oh please, get real here. Just as the left has always done, they find ways to belittle those that go against their grain.
I have alredy reasearched it my dear. Now let's get past that one link and shall you ptry to make excuses for the others as well?

One thing that bugs me more than anything is the fact climate change is real, yet it is being pushed as being catastrophic, for great financial gain for some, as being all man made and we must charge everyone carbon credits, taxes, etc. and this will save the world! There are cycles that are natural of which is always occurring.

Let's pretend for just one moment that indeed global warming is all man made. Now you tell me how, when there are billions on this earth that need energy to survive, we get these billions to not use energy to survive? How do we stop forests from burning? How do we stop all volcanoes from ever erupting? How do we stop the sun from heating and adding to this man-made global warming? How do we stop the earth from shifting on its axis? How do we stop the earths natural methane production? I believe many in their warped pseudo enviro minds wishes that we could just extinguish as much of mankind as we can to prevent their fears from coming true, but don't ask them to be one that is, as they must survive so they can save the rest of man-kind from themselves.
Or do we study how to adapt for the inevitable?

Let's pretend for just a moment that we do find only clean energy sources that reduce greenhouse levels. What happens when an ice age returns? Do we suddenly return to dirty sources to hope to stall its return?
Or do we study how to adapt to the inevitable?

Rather than concentrating on making billions for others in their scheme, what we should be doing is studying how to adapt when areas that are frozen turn green and areas that are green turn frozen as has happened throughout the time of the earth. (It also always amazes me how nothing is mentioned of the ice growing in places such as the antartic, only of the melting ice in the artics.) Whether it happens within our lifetimes or in another thousands of years, that should be our focus.

But you see, it is politically incorrect and heresy to the cultists who are convinced that those politicians pushing AGW have no motive other than to save us from ourselves. It is blasphemy to suggest that there could be any other reason for any global warming that is happening other than your evil pre-hybrid Chevy or Ford or the fact that folks use heating oil or coal to heat their homes and cook their food.

And if we should actually consider solutions such as offered in the video KissMy posted, or that our energies would be better spent helping people adapt to inevitable climate change, it could upset the whole cultic schtick and might cost some folks the cushy grants and/or the for profit millions they will make by keeping it going.

What profits?

 

[Foxfyre]

oh please, get real here. Just as the left has always done, they find ways to belittle those that go against their grain.
I have alredy reasearched it my dear. Now let's get past that one link and shall you ptry to make excuses for the others as well?

One thing that bugs me more than anything is the fact climate change is real, yet it is being pushed as being catastrophic, for great financial gain for some, as being all man made and we must charge everyone carbon credits, taxes, etc. and this will save the world! There are cycles that are natural of which is always occurring.

Let's pretend for just one moment that indeed global warming is all man made. Now you tell me how, when there are billions on this earth that need energy to survive, we get these billions to not use energy to survive? How do we stop forests from burning? How do we stop all volcanoes from ever erupting? How do we stop the sun from heating and adding to this man-made global warming? How do we stop the earth from shifting on its axis? How do we stop the earths natural methane production? I believe many in their warped pseudo enviro minds wishes that we could just extinguish as much of mankind as we can to prevent their fears from coming true, but don't ask them to be one that is, as they must survive so they can save the rest of man-kind from themselves.
Or do we study how to adapt for the inevitable?

Let's pretend for just a moment that we do find only clean energy sources that reduce greenhouse levels. What happens when an ice age returns? Do we suddenly return to dirty sources to hope to stall its return?
Or do we study how to adapt to the inevitable?

Rather than concentrating on making billions for others in their scheme, what we should be doing is studying how to adapt when areas that are frozen turn green and areas that are green turn frozen as has happened throughout the time of the earth. (It also always amazes me how nothing is mentioned of the ice growing in places such as the antartic, only of the melting ice in the artics.) Whether it happens within our lifetimes or in another thousands of years, that should be our focus.

But you see, it is politically incorrect and heresy to the cultists who are convinced that those politicians pushing AGW have no motive other than to save us from ourselves. It is blasphemy to suggest that there could be any other reason for any global warming that is happening other than your evil pre-hybrid Chevy or Ford or the fact that folks use heating oil or coal to heat their homes and cook their food.

And if we should actually consider solutions such as offered in the video KissMy posted, or that our energies would be better spent helping people adapt to inevitable climate change, it could upset the whole cultic schtick and might cost some folks the cushy grants and/or the for profit millions they will make by keeping it going.

What profits?

Those I posted previously. And since I did post them, I am disinclined to go back to find them and post them again when those who really want to know can as easily look them up.

 

[Mustang]

But you see, it is politically incorrect and heresy to the cultists who are convinced that those politicians pushing AGW have no motive other than to save us from ourselves. It is blasphemy to suggest that there could be any other reason for any global warming that is happening other than your evil pre-hybrid Chevy or Ford or the fact that folks use heating oil or coal to heat their homes and cook their food.

And if we should actually consider solutions such as offered in the video KissMy posted, or that our energies would be better spent helping people adapt to inevitable climate change, it could upset the whole cultic schtick and might cost some folks the cushy grants and/or the for profit millions they will make by keeping it going.

What profits?

Those I posted previously. And since I did post them, I am disinclined to go back to find them and post them again when those who really want to know can as easily look them up.

Just reference the post number.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's what I don't want to go back and look up. There have been lots of posts since I posted them. But feel free to go find it. I did post the information. Just 300+ posts to sort through actually.

 

[mamooth]

If someone starts screaming about politics when the topic of AGW comes up, you know that person is a cultist. Denialists almost always instantly shift the topic to politics. They have to, as the science doesn't agree with them. While there will be a few econuts raving about political conspiracies, they're very few compared to the vast numbers of denialists raving about political conspiracies.

Satellite measurements of energy flux don't lie. More energy comes in than goes out. We see the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands. That would be why the basic theory is settled science. It's no longer possible for a rational person to deny warming is occurring and humans are causing it. At this point, the discussion -- at least by non-cultists -- has moved to what local effects will be, the specific magnitudes, and what do to about it.

However, to the denialist cult, hard evidence simply shows how the laws of physics are part of some vast socialist conspiracy. This struggle isn't so much about science anymore. It's about western rationality, about science and logic (the AGW side) facing off against ancient emotionalism and superstition (the denialists).

 

[depotoo]

If someone starts screaming about politics when the topic of AGW comes up, you know that person is a cultist. Denialists almost always instantly shift the topic to politics. They have to, as the science doesn't agree with them. While there will be a few econuts raving about political conspiracies, they're very few compared to the vast numbers of denialists raving about political conspiracies.

Satellite measurements of energy flux don't lie. More energy comes in than goes out. We see the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands. That would be why the basic theory is settled science. It's no longer possible for a rational person to deny warming is occurring and humans are causing it. At this point, the discussion -- at least by non-cultists -- has moved to what local effects will be, the specific magnitudes, and what do to about it.

However, to the denialist cult, hard evidence simply shows how the laws of physics are part of some vast socialist conspiracy. This struggle isn't so much about science anymore. It's about western rationality, about science and logic (the AGW side) facing off against ancient emotionalism and superstition (the denialists).

Seriously? Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront? Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire? - DailyFinance

 

[mamooth]

Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront?

Scientists. Was that supposed to be a trick question? The science was non-political until the loony right cult politicized it.

Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Thank you for a further demonstration of your cult's tactics. You know, the demonizing some personality figure of the opposition, as opposed to discussing the issue. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they talk about Al Gore.

 

[Mustang]

Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront?

Scientists. Was that supposed to be a trick question? The science was non-political until the loony right cult politicized it.

Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Thank you for a further demonstration of your cult's tactics. You know, the demonizing some personality figure of the opposition, as opposed to discussing the issue. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they talk about Al Gore.

Let's not forget about how the Bush administration censored climate science reports prior to publication. Can you imagine the outrage on the right if a well-regarded and respected science report commissioned by our gov't was censored by the Obama Admin because it cast doubt on anthropological causes related to climate change?

 

[depotoo]

Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront?

Scientists. Was that supposed to be a trick question? The science was non-political until the loony right cult politicized it.

Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Thank you for a further demonstration of your cult's tactics. You know, the demonizing some personality figure of the opposition, as opposed to discussing the issue. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they talk about Al Gore.

Once again, seriously?? Talking out of both sides off your mouth seems to come easy, doesn't it?

We could present the statements and papers of thousands of scientists that disagree to man-made global warming, yet you would villianize each and every one rather than discuss what is wrong with their theories.
Mamooth you are being taken to the cleaners, unless of course you happen to be one profiting from such.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront?

Scientists. Was that supposed to be a trick question? The science was non-political until the loony right cult politicized it.

Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Thank you for a further demonstration of your cult's tactics. You know, the demonizing some personality figure of the opposition, as opposed to discussing the issue. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they talk about Al Gore.

The science was non-political until the loony right cult politicized it.

"The science says we need to spend trillions. Keep politics out of it."

Are you kidding? That's hilarious!

 

[Old Rocks]

If someone starts screaming about politics when the topic of AGW comes up, you know that person is a cultist. Denialists almost always instantly shift the topic to politics. They have to, as the science doesn't agree with them. While there will be a few econuts raving about political conspiracies, they're very few compared to the vast numbers of denialists raving about political conspiracies.

Satellite measurements of energy flux don't lie. More energy comes in than goes out. We see the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands. That would be why the basic theory is settled science. It's no longer possible for a rational person to deny warming is occurring and humans are causing it. At this point, the discussion -- at least by non-cultists -- has moved to what local effects will be, the specific magnitudes, and what do to about it.

However, to the denialist cult, hard evidence simply shows how the laws of physics are part of some vast socialist conspiracy. This struggle isn't so much about science anymore. It's about western rationality, about science and logic (the AGW side) facing off against ancient emotionalism and superstition (the denialists).

Seriously? Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront? Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire? - DailyFinance

OK, dumb ****.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[depotoo]

If someone starts screaming about politics when the topic of AGW comes up, you know that person is a cultist. Denialists almost always instantly shift the topic to politics. They have to, as the science doesn't agree with them. While there will be a few econuts raving about political conspiracies, they're very few compared to the vast numbers of denialists raving about political conspiracies.

Satellite measurements of energy flux don't lie. More energy comes in than goes out. We see the outward IR flux squeezing down around the CO2 absorption bands. That would be why the basic theory is settled science. It's no longer possible for a rational person to deny warming is occurring and humans are causing it. At this point, the discussion -- at least by non-cultists -- has moved to what local effects will be, the specific magnitudes, and what do to about it.

However, to the denialist cult, hard evidence simply shows how the laws of physics are part of some vast socialist conspiracy. This struggle isn't so much about science anymore. It's about western rationality, about science and logic (the AGW side) facing off against ancient emotionalism and superstition (the denialists).

Seriously? Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront? Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire? - DailyFinance

OK, dumb ****.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

now, now, getting testy are we?

Care to explain what happened to the ice age that was coming in the 70's proclaimed by many reknowned scientists?
I will copy my post in another thread here for you-
(oh, and by the way, if you have followed my postings you would know I do believe in climate change, just as it has occurred for thousands of years and my question is why we don't study how to adapt for when the extremes happen, whether within our lifetime or in another thousands of years, rather than try to stop something that will inevitably happen no matter what we do. Seems alot more reasonable use of all these dollars than to line pockets, etc. for what will not in anyway stop what will ever happen)

1971- commentaried in Time Magazine- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Cl
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

S I Rasool - NASA Scientist, AMS

They also authored this paper in 72 -
Aerosol concentrations: effect on planetary temperat... [Science. 1972] - PubMed - NCBI

The authors -
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010) Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

want more?

Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970's. (NYT: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 & also see: NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007 and also see: 1975 New York Times: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing, Major Cooling May Be Ahead", May 21, 1975 and see: 1974 Time Magazine: "Another Ice Age," June 24, 1974

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 – Washington Times – September 19, 2007

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Has the planet ever warmed without 7 billion people burning fossil fuels?

Let me google that for you

Wow, the planet has warmed before. Now if you ever figure out why, get back to me.

Scientists have already done so. Perhaps you should try understanding what they have "figured out" is causing it this time.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Let me google that for you

Wow, the planet has warmed before. Now if you ever figure out why, get back to me.

Scientists have already done so. Perhaps you should try understanding what they have "figured out" is causing it this time.

that chart still looks like

the number of scientists that

at one time agreed to the earth was flat

and that the sun rotated around the earth

 

[westwall]

Let me google that for you

Wow, the planet has warmed before. Now if you ever figure out why, get back to me.

Scientists have already done so. Perhaps you should try understanding what they have "figured out" is causing it this time.

My guess it the same stuff that is causing the warming this time is the same as caused it before. You see dear child there is a simple scientific axiom called Occams Razor.....I suggest you look it up.

 

[mamooth]

Once again, seriously?? Talking out of both sides off your mouth seems to come easy, doesn't it?

Crying because I keep laughing at your cultish antics isn't going to convince anyone you're not a cultist. Sensitivity about criticism of the cult is another hallmark of the cultist.

We could present the statements and papers of thousands of scientists that disagree to man-made global warming, yet you would villianize each and every one rather than discuss what is wrong with their theories.

Here we see the standard cult projection routine, in this case a projection of the cult's "all data that disagrees with me is fabricated" belief on to all non-cultists.

Mamooth you are being taken to the cleaners, unless of course you happen to be one profiting from such.

You're much too brainwashed to pull off the condescending act. I can it pull it off, 'cuz I'm really smart, and I haven't sworn allegiance to a liars' cult like you have. But you cultists, you all look ridiculous when you attempt it.

 

[mamooth]

You see dear child there is a simple scientific axiom called Occams Razor.....I suggest you look it up.

Occam's Razor supports AGW theory and says your crank theory should be tossed.

I'm curious as to how you got it so wrong. For our amusement, why don't you paraphrase Occam's Razor in your own words? Since you're such an expert on it, that should be easy for you.

 

[westwall]

You see dear child there is a simple scientific axiom called Occams Razor.....I suggest you look it up.

Occam's Razor supports AGW theory and says your crank theory should be tossed.

I'm curious as to how you got it so wrong. For our amusement, why don't you paraphrase Occam's Razor in your own words? Since you're such an expert on it, that should be easy for you.

Mmmmmmm, no, silly person it doesn't. You see dear silly person this is the way it works...Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models. But a propagandist, anti scientific, ultra-religous, fruitcake like you would never acknowledge a fact like that.

Would you...

 

[Derideo_Te]

You see dear child there is a simple scientific axiom called Occams Razor.....I suggest you look it up.

Occam's Razor supports AGW theory and says your crank theory should be tossed.

I'm curious as to how you got it so wrong. For our amusement, why don't you paraphrase Occam's Razor in your own words? Since you're such an expert on it, that should be easy for you.

Mmmmmmm, no, silly person it doesn't. You see dear silly person this is the way it works...Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models. But a propagandist, anti scientific, ultra-religous, fruitcake like you would never acknowledge a fact like that.

Would you...

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

 

[westwall]

Occam's Razor supports AGW theory and says your crank theory should be tossed.

I'm curious as to how you got it so wrong. For our amusement, why don't you paraphrase Occam's Razor in your own words? Since you're such an expert on it, that should be easy for you.

Mmmmmmm, no, silly person it doesn't. You see dear silly person this is the way it works...Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models. But a propagandist, anti scientific, ultra-religous, fruitcake like you would never acknowledge a fact like that.

Would you...

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.