Human Caused Global Warming

[Billy_Bob]

Do you even know what peer review is?

You certainly dont... When science was doing real peer review they placed in print their hypothesis, Their plan to make determinations, Their data, Their method of data collection to include checks and balances, AND THEIR MATH and its outcome.

This was all made accessible to the reviewers and to the general scientific community at large as each discipline reviews different portions of the work for errors. But no more...

Today peer review is PAL review where the data, math and methods are kept from the general scientific community along with the general public. Even the so called scientific journals will no longer supply the facts about their own publications.

In the Climate Science world you are shunned if your not one of the chose few.. Papers that discredit their chosen are never printed even if the science is sound..

When I hear the term "peer review" from an alarmist it means they only accept what they believe and any evidence to the contrary is garbage. This isn't science!

 

[Wyld Kard]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

gipper,
Human caused global warming is real.

Wrong!

 

[Mustang]

Do you even know what peer review is?

You certainly dont... When science was doing real peer review they placed in print their hypothesis, Their plan to make determinations, Their data, Their method of data collection to include checks and balances, AND THEIR MATH and its outcome.

This was all made accessible to the reviewers and to the general scientific community at large as each discipline reviews different portions of the work for errors. But no more...

Today peer review is PAL review where the data, math and methods are kept from the general scientific community along with the general public. Even the so called scientific journals will no longer supply the facts about their own publications.

In the Climate Science world you are shunned if your not one of the chose few.. Papers that discredit their chosen are never printed even if the science is sound..

When I hear the term "peer review" from an alarmist it means they only accept what they believe and any evidence to the contrary is garbage. This isn't science!

Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.

But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community.

But that failure to get the respect of the scientific community certainly hasn't stopped the people with alternate theories from making those claims in other forums where the standard for publication is only someone's willingness to do so. That may be a victory for someone's freedom of the speech, but it's also very similar to the difference between a book of nonfiction and a book of fiction. As for me, I've seen and heard so much BS in my life, that I refuse to believe something just because it's something I want to be true. Needless to say, I don't buy any miracle vitamin cures which, unsurprisingly, are heavily marketed on AM talk radio.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/16/IDontKnowWhatToBelieve_web2011.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.

But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community.

But that failure to get the respect of the scientific community certainly hasn't stopped the people with alternate theories from making those claims in other forums where the standard for publication is only someone's willingness to do so. That may be a victory for someone's freedom of the speech, but it's also very similar to the difference between a book of nonfiction and a book of fiction. As for me, I've seen and heard so much BS in my life, that I refuse to believe something just because it's something I want to be true. Needless to say, I don't buy any miracle vitamin cures which, unsurprisingly, are heavily marketed on AM talk radio.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/16/IDontKnowWhatToBelieve_web2011.pdf

All of that to post you are totally clueless as to what is occurring today. This is either by intentional omission or you are that ignorant. Either way your a shill with blinders on.

 

[Mustang]

Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.

But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community.

But that failure to get the respect of the scientific community certainly hasn't stopped the people with alternate theories from making those claims in other forums where the standard for publication is only someone's willingness to do so. That may be a victory for someone's freedom of the speech, but it's also very similar to the difference between a book of nonfiction and a book of fiction. As for me, I've seen and heard so much BS in my life, that I refuse to believe something just because it's something I want to be true. Needless to say, I don't buy any miracle vitamin cures which, unsurprisingly, are heavily marketed on AM talk radio.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/16/IDontKnowWhatToBelieve_web2011.pdf

All of that to post you are totally clueless as to what is occurring today. This is either by intentional omission or you are that ignorant. Either way your a shill with blinders on.

Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose.

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the climate change debate, there's some collusion taking place on one side or the other. Now, from an Occam's razor perspective, which possibility seems more likely?

Is it that thousands of independent-minded scientists who steadfastly guard their reputations in their peer-review world and who are also always jockeying for recognition in a highly competitive field are more likely to collude together to falsify scientific data in the climate change debate for the purpose of getting relatively small mounts of money in research grants, or is it more likely that business interests with trillions of dollars at stake in coal, oil, and gas sales are likely to try to maintain the status quo in order that they can continue to exploit natural resources.

Before you answer option A, think about something. Scientists are saying that the debate about whether this is happening or not is over. How does that translate into more research into the causes of climate change. If they were really trolling for more research money, wouldn't they be far more likely to say that the cause is undetermined at this point and more research is needed in order to pinpoint the cause?

 

[mamooth]

The Jonestown cultists looked well-grounded in reality compared to how the deniers look now. They've been reduced to repetitive screaming about the great global socialist conspiracy. At least at Jonestown, Jim Jones just claimed the US government was after them, not the entire world.

I wonder, where does it end? Will the denier cult end as tragically as Jonestown? Let's all hope not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose.

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the climate change debate, there's some collusion taking place on one side or the other. Now, from an Occam's razor perspective, which possibility seems more likely?

Is it that thousands of independent-minded scientists who steadfastly guard their reputations in their peer-review world and who are also always jockeying for recognition in a highly competitive field are more likely to collude together to falsify scientific data in the climate change debate for the purpose of getting relatively small mounts of money in research grants, or is it more likely that business interests with trillions of dollars at stake in coal, oil, and gas sales are likely to try to maintain the status quo in order that they can continue to exploit natural resources.

Before you answer option A, think about something. Scientists are saying that the debate about whether this is happening or not is over. How does that translate into more research into the causes of climate change. If they were really trolling for more research money, wouldn't they be far more likely to say that the cause is undetermined at this point and more research is needed in order to pinpoint the cause?

How many scientists do you know today who have been denied publishing because what they find does not fit the UN/OBAMA/EPA agenda? The list is long and distinguished...

And many of the papers being published like COOK Et Al and all those trying like hell to give him cover for his deceitful lies along with his abomination he called and you call science.. Cook turned a 0.05 number into 97%... That is the kind of stuff your mighty journals of science are publishing... They are publishing AGENDA direct by Socialists..

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

The fact that ice exists at both poles indicates that the earth is presently in an ice age whether you would call it an ice age or not. Google the term "present ice age" and you will get plenty of credible sources stating that the earth is in an ice age...we are experiencing an interglacial period at present but the ice age is not over and won't be for a good long time yet...the fact is that the earth is coming out of an ice age and as you can see by the graph of earth temperature history I provided, the temperature has a good long way to climb before the ice age ends....the fact that the temperature increases as the earth exits an ice age should come as no surprise to anyone..

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

You are making a lot of assumptions there...the first one is that CO2 has anything at all to do with climate other than the fact that it is a gas that follows temperature around...ice cores show us clearly that CO2 follows temperature...it doesn't lead...and paper after paper keep coming out finding ever smaller climate sensitivity to CO2 vs the IPCC and climate science propaganda....eventually, the climate sensitivity to CO2 will be found very close to zero....the only effect CO2 has on climate is its contribution to the actual weight of the atmosphere. As I pointed out...relative to earth history, the present 400ppm of CO2 is abnormally low....The average CO2 concentration on earth is in excess of 1000ppm and as the ice age drags on to its inevitable end, the same thing is going to happen again....CO2 will reach normal levels regardless of what we want.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

Visit the paleomap project...there are some interesting maps of previous climate and the position of the continents...drastic climate shifts don't depend nearly as much on land movement around the globe as you seem to think.

For example, 14 million years ago, the land masses looked like this:

Not much has changed since then... note there was no ice at the north pole and little if any at the south...Coastlines were different due to the fact that there was much more water in the oceans due to less ice.

The land masses have not moved much since that time..and yet, here is what the earth looked like 18K years ago during the last glacial maximum.

Ocean currents would have still been running much as they are today and yet, antarctic ice was almost to south american...and ice sheets extended down south of the great lakes and covered much of europe. The land masses have shifted almost none since that time and this is what the earth looks like now..

Clearly there has been a major shift in climate since the last glacial maximum but the land masses haven't moved appreciably. If you go back into history, you see further evidence that drastic changes in climate happened without drastic land movement.

This is what the earth looked like during the late Carboniferous period...100 million years ago. During that time, extensive rain forests covered most of pangea which had northern and southern deserts...Ice covered the south pole.

The Permian period, 5 million years later didn't see much change in land position, ocean currents certainly wouldn't have altered in any drastic way and yet, the ice had extended from the south and most of the southern hemisphere was covered...the tropical rain forests started turning into coal at this time....by the end of the Permian period, again, not much land movement, the ice had melted from the south pole, the tropical rain forests had been replaced with temperate forests and much of the desert had greened...it was during this time that an ice cap began to form over the north pole...

So you see, climate can change drastically with or without appreciable land movement...human beings have seen that since our time on earth began...we have moved from glacial period to interglacial with practically no land movement...the only real differences humans have experienced has been due to melting ice which was not due to land movement.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

Better safe than sorry is a terrible way to look at things....if you look at history, more often people have ended up being sorry that they tried to be safe. Acting on an imagined unknown opens the door wide for unintended consequences and human beings have seen plenty of them. If hard evidence existed that CO2 was changing the climate rather than the weak corroboratory evidence, data tampering, and complete rejection of the scientific method, I would be on board...I am not because there just isn't any evidence that anything at all is happening in the climate that is even approaching the limits of natural variability.

SSDD,
First of all, just because ice exists at a planet's poles is no indication to me that such a planet is in an ice age. You then mention how high temperatures can climb before they get to past levels. Well first of all, there are times and places where things get too hot as it is. I wouldn't want to live in the kind of world that you describe. Also, what the world does of it's own accord is a different matter. The point is, what's our excuse for throwing the biosphere into such turmoil. The filthy idea that god created us and gave us the planet to do with as we please? That idea is grotesque. The real reason is greed piled on top of greed. That's it. Discussion over. But I will continue anyway.

Then you bring up temperature increase during a supposed "ice age." But that only goes to show just how detrimental of an effect that we are having on the planet. You then go on to say that temperatures follow CO2. But I have seen graphs that show that CO2 levels usually follow trmperatures. And according to something I saw on TV, CO2 levels are going up at a faster rate than they have in the past 800,000 years. And this isn't due to something like geology, earth orbit or axis change. And when temperatures start to catch up, it isn't going to be a pretty picture. Also, according to something on the same program, apparently some scientist believe that we are just twenty years away from catastrophe.

As for everything you did with the maps showing the positions of the contenents over time. I won't go into all that. Because it is largely unimportant. Though I will say that you are right about how things have changed since humans appeared. But that isn't the point. The point is how much humans are now making things change. For things like coral, alge or whatever, they have an excuse. But we are thinking creatures. That takes our excuse away. You then disagree with the "better safe than sorry" logic. Even calling it terrible. But it is exactly the approach humans should be taking. Believe it or not.

 

[Mustang]

Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose.

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the climate change debate, there's some collusion taking place on one side or the other. Now, from an Occam's razor perspective, which possibility seems more likely?

Is it that thousands of independent-minded scientists who steadfastly guard their reputations in their peer-review world and who are also always jockeying for recognition in a highly competitive field are more likely to collude together to falsify scientific data in the climate change debate for the purpose of getting relatively small mounts of money in research grants, or is it more likely that business interests with trillions of dollars at stake in coal, oil, and gas sales are likely to try to maintain the status quo in order that they can continue to exploit natural resources.

Before you answer option A, think about something. Scientists are saying that the debate about whether this is happening or not is over. How does that translate into more research into the causes of climate change. If they were really trolling for more research money, wouldn't they be far more likely to say that the cause is undetermined at this point and more research is needed in order to pinpoint the cause?

How many scientists do you know today who have been denied publishing because what they find does not fit the UN/OBAMA/EPA agenda? The list is long and distinguished...

And many of the papers being published like COOK Et Al and all those trying like hell to give him cover for his deceitful lies along with his abomination he called and you call science.. Cook turned a 0.05 number into 97%... That is the kind of stuff your mighty journals of science are publishing... They are publishing AGENDA direct by Socialists..

People don't get their work rejected for publication in reputable scientific journals because it "does not fit the UN/OBAMA/EPA agenda" whatever that's supposed to mean. If it's rejected at all, it's because they've failed to make a convincing scientific case for their theories. After all, they ARE scientific journals. As such, the publishers have a reputation to protect. That's even more so than the average newspaper that tries very hard to make sure they don't make any grievous errors in their news reporting. As such, a scientific journal that publishes some wild, unsubstantiated theory about anything is likely to suffer a severe hit to their reputation in much the same way that a medical journal would if they started publishing articles about the healing power of crystals IF the work did not provide double blind statistical studies that were independently verified and supported the efficacy of crystals leading to some kind of heretofore unexplained and/or undocumented medicinal benefit to patients. Otherwise, as far as anyone knows, it's just an unsubstantiated claim at best, and claptrap at worst.

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
Though my knowledge of science is limited, there are things I can tell you that no rational person can doubt. To start out, those who wish to maintain the status quo will say anything, ANYTHING, to keep things from changing.

Again, history doesn't really bear out your claims...it is more likely that people who want change will say anything to get the change they wanted...do you think stalin, and lenin, and pol pot, and hitler, etc told the people what they had to look forward to when their change eventually came to pass or do you think they say whatever they thought was necessary to initiate the change and the consequences be damned?

Look back through history with an honest eye and you will see that more often than not, the torch of progress in reality is a devouring conflagration.

I have to wonder if you can even believe that plastic debris is accumulating in oceanic gyres.

True...there are some serious environmental problems that exist...problems that are real and need serious attention... Unfortunately, the global warming hoax sucks all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure from the vaults. We can't address the serious and addressable problems till this hoax is sent to the dustbin of history.

Also, it is a fact that human caused global warming exists.

That is not a fact at all. Describe anything happening in the climate today or for the past 500 years that is outside the bounds of natural variability.

I was watching a documentary called "Greedy Lying Bastards." In it they showed the CEO of Exxon saying at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality. And he had far more reason to deny it than you probably do.

A documentary produced by who? Exxon stands to make its billions with a climate crisis or without...in fact, they stand to make more if the climate crisis continues...climate science on the other hand depends on crisis for their present state of wealth...who is more likely to lie...and what the hell does an MBA at exxon know about climate anyway?

It isn't in my imagination that last year all of Greenland, even mountain tops, underwent melt for the first time ever. It isn't in my imagination that wherever ice is replaced with water, the greenhouse effect increases. It isn't im my imagination that last year there were places in the far north that saw 90 degree temperatures for the first time ever. Etc. times zillions.

The rate of sea level increase decelerated during the 20th century...it didn't accelerate as would be the case if the ice were melting as you believe.

SSDD,
Your analogies of past dictators isn't very accurate. They are just people at certain times. It doesn't really have anything to say about the way humans usually behave for the vast majority of the time. Believe it or not, it is those who are wealthy, powerful and want to stay that way who usually hold sway. No matter what it means to the vast majority of the populace.

You then admit to environmental problems. But somehow you come to the conclusion that unless you first deny the reality of human caused global warming, you can't begin to fix the other problems. You cant really be that ignorant. So I'll just that one pass as a natural mistake. After all, none of us are perfect. Even though I do seem to come closest to it. You then ask me to mention something new that has happened in the last 500 years. Well I'm no expert. But as I said before, according to something I saw, last year the entire surface of Greenland underwent some melting. Even mountaintops. Apparently that never happened before.

You then ask about who produced the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards." It doesn't matter. What matters is what the CEO of Exxon said. You then ask what he knows. Well apparently enough to be CEO of Exxon. A company that I might add has enough money to, and probably does, hire about the best scientists there are. Scientists who the CEO of Exxon has probably consulted with on numerous occasions.

You then bring up sea levels during the 20th century. But I'm not about to go diging around through all such data. All I can say is that sea levels are rising. No doubt, human caused global warming is to blame.

 

[cultsmasher]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The climate is always changing. How is the present change outside the boundaries of natural variations

nothing like rehashing everything again. Newbies that now think they have all the answers. This is just too funny. I ask the guy to provie his post and he states that enough graphs have been displayed. hah, what is it skooks calls them? oh yeah k00ks!!!!!!

jc456,
Enough graphs have indeed been shown. I think that what brought the whole thing up was how fast CO2 levels were climbing. Well according to something I recently saw about the topic, CO2 levels are rising faster than they have in the past 800,000 years. And whatever caused it to happen in the past, it can't be blamed on a supposedly "thinking" creature like mankind.

 

[cultsmasher]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference. Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably. Good luck.

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

No, you're willing to suspend your ability to think. That's all. You don't have to be a climatologist to know what the scientific method is, and how it is supposed to be practiced. Further it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the climatologists abandoned the scientific method and have resorted to simple falsification of records to support their now failed theory. Additionally the 97% meme has been disproven on so many different occasions I have lost count and yet the willfully ignorant keep trotting that number out as if it means something.

It just means you are either too lazy, or too stupid, to think for yourself. That's all.

Agreed.

It is clear that the AGW cultist is easily duped by the elites. Anyone capable of thinking for themselves, should know better than to believe anything promoted by proven liars.

gipper,
As I told others around here, each year all the earth's volcanos put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons. I am going to guess that you would disagree that this can and does have an impact.

 

[cultsmasher]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

Mustang,
Some of the things you say I agree with. Especially on human caused global warming. Some, not so much. You bring up some clean technology presenting itself. Did you ever see the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man?" If you did, you know that it was about aliens coming down and giving mankind technology to end hunger, war and disease. But these aliens apparently enjoyed eating humans. So the resulting population explosion that these technologies would produce would be ok as far as the aliens were concerned.

So even if some green technology did come about, we would still be in need of Fascism. You then bring up the Holocaust. But according to one web site, Red Cross records of the time show that only about 270,000 Jews died in concentration camps. As to whether or not those records are accurate, I can't say. I'm not a historian.

But I can say that under Stalin, the Ukrainians suffered even worse than what the Jews were supposed to have suffered. But the U.S. supported Stalin anyway. You then basically go into a defeatist rant. But you're not defeated until you're dead. And if you're good at haunting, maybe not even then. As long as you can support White separatism, there is hope.

 

[cultsmasher]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own... We don't actually know that the 3% wouldn't still be the imbalance if man cut back their paltry amount. Because that excess is probably driven by TEMPERATURE --- not the other way around..

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. No MAGIC ever measured. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

flacaltenn,
You know the figures. All the volcanos on earth each year, 200 million tons of CO2. Humans are responsible each year for 26.8 billion tons. That's billion with a B. That must have some effect on your 5% claim. You then talk about how much CO2 the earth eats. Well the measurements taken don't show what has been "eaten." It shows what it there. And it keeps increasing. Also, I have seen graphs that show usually comes before CO2 increase. That isn't the way it is happening today.

You then talk about positive feedbacks. But from what I have seen, not enough science is known to say that a positive feedback couldn't happen. Though from everytyhing I see, what is happening just as it is is bad enough. But positive feedback or not, what is sure is that it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then you really go off the rails by talking about the earth's surface absorbing heat. What do you think the earth is. Some magical place at the other end of your toilet where things go, to never be heard of again? I can tell you that it isn't.

 

[cultsmasher]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

"The truth speaks for itself".

Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.

That so-called "truth"?

Wildcard,
The truth shows that temperatures are rising. The truth shows that manmade CO2 levels are rising at an almost, if not completely vertical track. According to something I saw on a PBS show recently, they said that CO2 levels are going up faster than they have in the past 800,000 years. But whatever may have made it go up faster in the past, at least it wasn't one supposedly intelligent kind of animal causing it. Admit it and get over it. You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

 

[westwall]

Do you even know what peer review is?

You certainly dont... When science was doing real peer review they placed in print their hypothesis, Their plan to make determinations, Their data, Their method of data collection to include checks and balances, AND THEIR MATH and its outcome.

This was all made accessible to the reviewers and to the general scientific community at large as each discipline reviews different portions of the work for errors. But no more...

Today peer review is PAL review where the data, math and methods are kept from the general scientific community along with the general public. Even the so called scientific journals will no longer supply the facts about their own publications.

In the Climate Science world you are shunned if your not one of the chose few.. Papers that discredit their chosen are never printed even if the science is sound..

When I hear the term "peer review" from an alarmist it means they only accept what they believe and any evidence to the contrary is garbage. This isn't science!

Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.

But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community.

But that failure to get the respect of the scientific community certainly hasn't stopped the people with alternate theories from making those claims in other forums where the standard for publication is only someone's willingness to do so. That may be a victory for someone's freedom of the speech, but it's also very similar to the difference between a book of nonfiction and a book of fiction. As for me, I've seen and heard so much BS in my life, that I refuse to believe something just because it's something I want to be true. Needless to say, I don't buy any miracle vitamin cures which, unsurprisingly, are heavily marketed on AM talk radio.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/16/IDontKnowWhatToBelieve_web2011.pdf

Your comment....

"But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals."

Certainly describes how science is SUPPOSED to be done. However, climatologists and their believers have substituted computer models for facts. Models never are, and can never be "facts". They are mathematical constructs that are limited by the skill (or lack thereof) of the modelers.

Some of the more ridiculous "studies" I have seen are where they take several models, run them, get a number and then run that number through other models! That is not science. That is science fiction.

 

[westwall]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own... We don't actually know that the 3% wouldn't still be the imbalance if man cut back their paltry amount. Because that excess is probably driven by TEMPERATURE --- not the other way around..

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. No MAGIC ever measured. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

flacaltenn,
You know the figures. All the volcanos on earth each year, 200 million tons of CO2. Humans are responsible each year for 26.8 billion tons. That's billion with a B. That must have some effect on your 5% claim. You then talk about how much CO2 the earth eats. Well the measurements taken don't show what has been "eaten." It shows what it there. And it keeps increasing. Also, I have seen graphs that show usually comes before CO2 increase. That isn't the way it is happening today.

You then talk about positive feedbacks. But from what I have seen, not enough science is known to say that a positive feedback couldn't happen. Though from everytyhing I see, what is happening just as it is is bad enough. But positive feedback or not, what is sure is that it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then you really go off the rails by talking about the earth's surface absorbing heat. What do you think the earth is. Some magical place at the other end of your toilet where things go, to never be heard of again? I can tell you that it isn't.

"Positive feedbacks" exist only in the minds of computer modelers and their creations. To date there has not been a shred of empirical evidence for them. Not one tot.

 

[westwall]

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

"The truth speaks for itself".

Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.

That so-called "truth"?

Wildcard,
The truth shows that temperatures are rising. The truth shows that manmade CO2 levels are rising at an almost, if not completely vertical track. According to something I saw on a PBS show recently, they said that CO2 levels are going up faster than they have in the past 800,000 years. But whatever may have made it go up faster in the past, at least it wasn't one supposedly intelligent kind of animal causing it. Admit it and get over it. You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

"Truth" is the realm of religion. Science deals only with facts. The facts tell us that there has been no warming for 17 years. Facts (based on the Vostock ice core data) shows that the most likely source for the increase in CO2 is completely natural, based on the time lag from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the observed time lag of 800 years for CO2 increases after like warming periods from the past.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

"The truth speaks for itself".

Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.

That so-called "truth"?

Wildcard,
The truth shows that temperatures are rising. The truth shows that manmade CO2 levels are rising at an almost, if not completely vertical track. According to something I saw on a PBS show recently, they said that CO2 levels are going up faster than they have in the past 800,000 years. But whatever may have made it go up faster in the past, at least it wasn't one supposedly intelligent kind of animal causing it. Admit it and get over it. You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

The truth shows that temperatures are rising.

Survey says: Wrong again!

Global warming No the planet is getting cooler World News Daily Express

You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

No.... we're not wrong. We're just not gullible like you warmists are.

 

[cultsmasher]

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

"The truth speaks for itself".

Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.

That so-called "truth"?

Wildcard,
The truth shows that temperatures are rising. The truth shows that manmade CO2 levels are rising at an almost, if not completely vertical track. According to something I saw on a PBS show recently, they said that CO2 levels are going up faster than they have in the past 800,000 years. But whatever may have made it go up faster in the past, at least it wasn't one supposedly intelligent kind of animal causing it. Admit it and get over it. You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

The truth shows that temperatures are rising.

Survey says: Wrong again!

Global warming No the planet is getting cooler World News Daily Express

You deniers are wrong. Dangerously wrong.

No.... we're not wrong. We're just not gullible like you warmists are.

Wildcard,
What time frame did the world news daily express get this from. The last five minutes? The trend since the beginning of the industral revloution has been upward.