More "climate model" BULLSHITE!!!

[skookerasbil]

Another true believer has joined the forum!!! Cool.......add another who has joined the ranks of the hopelessly duped PC zombies........ready to jump in hook, line and stinker to fcukk over the future of our kids based upon a hail Mary pass guess based upon this naive notion that computer models are accurate. C'mon...........

Going green is gay s0n...........even the UN said this week..........it'll cost 76 trillion to do so.

 

[skookerasbil]

s0n........heres the poop..............

The true believers are getting their clocks cleaned in the court of public opinion which is all I and tens of millions of others give a rats ass about. Nobody cares about the science anymore except those who embrace the hysterical view of the world. How much climate legislation is being discussed in Congress over the past two years? DICK......thats how much!! The subject is radioactive because the public doesnt want to hear jack about paying a single dime to combat mythical science. The views of the k00ks on here represent a fringe sliver of the American public. Most people hear about global warming these days and say, "meh"..........which is a beautiful thing. Most of the radical tree huggers have zero real responsibilities in life and can afford to spend time obsessing on hysterical stuff. People with real lives and real responsibilities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fcukking busy to give a shit, particularly since recently theyve learned that to become a true believer means you'll be required to open your wallet..................WIDE. Every single poll shows the attitude of Americans for that shit is "FCUKK YOU!!!".


Indeed............the deniers? Not losing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

s0n........heres the poop..............

The true believers are getting their clocks cleaned in the court of public opinion which is all I and tens of millions of others give a rats ass about. Nobody cares about the science anymore except those who embrace the hysterical view of the world. How much climate legislation is being discussed in Congress over the past two years? DICK......thats how much!! The subject is radioactive because the public doesnt want to hear jack about paying a single dime to combat mythical science. The views of the k00ks on here represent a fringe sliver of the American public. Most people hear about global warming these days and say, "meh"..........which is a beautiful thing. Most of the radical tree huggers have zero real responsibilities in life and can afford to spend time obsessing on hysterical stuff. People with real lives and real responsibilities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fcukking busy to give a shit, particularly since recently theyve learned that to become a true believer means you'll be required to open your wallet..................WIDE. Every single poll shows the attitude of Americans for that shit is "FCUKK YOU!!!".


Indeed............the deniers? Not losing.

So this doesn't mean anything? What happens if it is the truth? I'm sure westwall--- that has a phd in the field of science cares?



Yeah it does concern me as a serious future negative forcing. As you increase water vapor for one you do get more positive forcing with the green house side, but you also get more cloud cover and as the arctic warms that part of the planet shall have more clouds. I've looked through papers that show that this could very well counter co2's warming ability much like sulfur and the solar minimum is currently doing. If all 3 where to come together it could be enough to cause a large enough negative to cause the global temperatures to go down.

The global warmers at the IPCC are to one sided and not able to think this through. First it has been proven that the 50s, 60s and 70s cooling of .1 to .15 was because of the developed worlds sulfur emissions, but then they wouldn't even count the fact that china and India are putting a crap load of it into the atmosphere over the past 10 years. This and the solar minimum from hell have teamed up over the past 8 years and this could come into play within the next few decades.



////

The solar output peaked in 1950 and has been slowly going down since, so you can't explain the warming through solar output since. About .15-.25 of the warming from 1880-1940 was in fact caused by the sun--something like 40 percent of the warming. Sulfer during the 1950s-1970s caused about .1 or so cooling. How the world do you explain wirebender or anyone the forcing for the .4c of warming since 1980 without co2 or other green house forcing(water vapor, methane). YOU CAN'T say the sun because it has decreased since the 1950s and has just taken a giant crap since 2003.

You can't get Y without knowing the reason behind it. You can't discount the effects of co2 without then needing to find the why's of the increase in temperature, which is caused by increase forcing. What is causing it?

200+x=220 and 220=y, so what you have here is to figure out what is causing the forcing that completes the equation. Of course you could say the sun is the 200, which makes up the vast amount of the Y. X is what ever extra forcing. You then could go on and add a z because x could be the natural forcing of co2, water vapor and differences within solar output within shorter time scales. So z would be what ever man is causing. So lets say the sun+the natural green house gases are now know and they're 15, so x=15. Now you have 200+15+z=220. You could figure that out to be 5=z, but if not co2---then what? What would z be that is causing the 5? Most of science believes Z to be co2 caused by man.

What I'm saying is you can show co2 wrong, but then you need to find out what is causing the forcing for the warming...

 

[newpolitics]

Another true believer has joined the forum!!! Cool.......add another who has joined the ranks of the hopelessly duped PC zombies........ready to jump in hook, line and stinker to fcukk over the future of our kids based upon a hail Mary pass guess based upon this naive notion that computer models are accurate. C'mon...........

Going green is gay s0n...........even the UN said this week..........it'll cost 76 trillion to do so.

Global Warming doesn't rest on Computer models. Get that through your thick head. They use the models to predict, but that doesn't change the present situation of global warming, or the study of the past, and its predictions of the future without computers. Just because a computer model got something wrong doesn't mean you scrap the whole theory. That is the dumbest conclusion ever, yet you want AGW scrapped so bad, you're willing to say that. It's bullshit nonetheless.

 

[skookerasbil]

s0n........heres the poop..............

The true believers are getting their clocks cleaned in the court of public opinion which is all I and tens of millions of others give a rats ass about. Nobody cares about the science anymore except those who embrace the hysterical view of the world. How much climate legislation is being discussed in Congress over the past two years? DICK......thats how much!! The subject is radioactive because the public doesnt want to hear jack about paying a single dime to combat mythical science. The views of the k00ks on here represent a fringe sliver of the American public. Most people hear about global warming these days and say, "meh"..........which is a beautiful thing. Most of the radical tree huggers have zero real responsibilities in life and can afford to spend time obsessing on hysterical stuff. People with real lives and real responsibilities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fcukking busy to give a shit, particularly since recently theyve learned that to become a true believer means you'll be required to open your wallet..................WIDE. Every single poll shows the attitude of Americans for that shit is "FCUKK YOU!!!".


Indeed............the deniers? Not losing.

So this doesn't mean anything? What happens if it is the truth? I'm sure westwall--- that has a phd in the field of science cares?



Yeah it does concern me as a serious future negative forcing. As you increase water vapor for one you do get more positive forcing with the green house side, but you also get more cloud cover and as the arctic warms that part of the planet shall have more clouds. I've looked through papers that show that this could very well counter co2's warming ability much like sulfur and the solar minimum is currently doing. If all 3 where to come together it could be enough to cause a large enough negative to cause the global temperatures to go down.

The global warmers at the IPCC are to one sided and not able to think this through. First it has been proven that the 50s, 60s and 70s cooling of .1 to .15 was because of the developed worlds sulfur emissions, but then they wouldn't even count the fact that china and India are putting a crap load of it into the atmosphere over the past 10 years. This and the solar minimum from hell have teamed up over the past 8 years and this could come into play within the next few decades.



////

The solar output peaked in 1950 and has been slowly going down since, so you can't explain the warming through solar output since. About .15-.25 of the warming from 1880-1940 was in fact caused by the sun--something like 40 percent of the warming. Sulfer during the 1950s-1970s caused about .1 or so cooling. How the world do you explain wirebender or anyone the forcing for the .4c of warming since 1980 without co2 or other green house forcing(water vapor, methane). YOU CAN'T say the sun because it has decreased since the 1950s and has just taken a giant crap since 2003.

You can't get Y without knowing the reason behind it. You can't discount the effects of co2 without then needing to find the why's of the increase in temperature, which is caused by increase forcing. What is causing it?

200+x=220 and 220=y, so what you have here is to figure out what is causing the forcing that completes the equation. Of course you could say the sun is the 200, which makes up the vast amount of the Y. X is what ever extra forcing. You then could go on and add a z because x could be the natural forcing of co2, water vapor and differences within solar output within shorter time scales. So z would be what ever man is causing. So lets say the sun+the natural green house gases are now know and they're 15, so x=15. Now you have 200+15+z=220. You could figure that out to be 5=z, but if not co2---then what? What would z be that is causing the 5? Most of science believes Z to be co2 caused by man.

What I'm saying is you can show co2 wrong, but then you need to find out what is causing the forcing for the warming...

Hey........I hear ya. But my point on these pages is essentially the same point you are making. My problem is, the k00ks want to go off hog wild with a half cocked strategy to address it when the science is still not definitive. The other point I think is imortant Matthew is that I really dont think the true believers think there are any special interests attached to the science of global warming. As if the intentions of the people profiting from the dire predictions have noble intentions. These people are just as greedy and selfish as the oil companies.......but Im already getting fcukked by the oil companies and definately dont want to next get fcukked by the electric companies who would double my electric bills or the government who will force me to buy shit for my home. Im barely making it now trying to live in this fcukked up state of New York with all the taxes..........so.........what..........I should automatically embrace theories that many challenge. Hey.........I know there are some that profit through that "challenge" but like the genuine people who believe AGW is a pronounced threat, there are also genunie people on the denier side. To think any other way definately indicates serious issues in somebody.

The way I look at it..........as a parent of two kids, if I were to automatically throw my cards with the AGW religion........as part of a vast, majority movement, there is a distinct possibility that the scientists could be wrong, and if they are..........then my kids future is fcukked. Accordingly, I am forced to be far more practical in my approach towards life. Many of those in the environmental movement just are not confronted by those realities..........but there are far more people out there like me. Life REQUIRES them to think on the margin, which is to say, they are forced to accept this notion that there are not solutions to all problems. You view the dynamic of the landscape of life and accept necessary tradeoffs. Its just the way it is...........the real hard core belivers have much trouble accepting that fact, bit it is what it is.


By the way Matthew...........you are the only reasonable non-denier on this forum.........a very deliberate and reasonable thinker. I cant even have a conversation with these other nuts.

 

[skookerasbil]

Another true believer has joined the forum!!! Cool.......add another who has joined the ranks of the hopelessly duped PC zombies........ready to jump in hook, line and stinker to fcukk over the future of our kids based upon a hail Mary pass guess based upon this naive notion that computer models are accurate. C'mon...........

Going green is gay s0n...........even the UN said this week..........it'll cost 76 trillion to do so.

Global Warming doesn't rest on Computer models. Get that through your thick head. They use the models to predict, but that doesn't change the present situation of global warming, or the study of the past, and its predictions of the future without computers. Just because a computer model got something wrong doesn't mean you scrap the whole theory. That is the dumbest conclusion ever, yet you want AGW scrapped so bad, you're willing to say that. It's bullshit nonetheless.

Well then +1 for the dickhead then.

Go show me where the public has embraced these computer models. If they did, Cap and Trade would be sailing through congress as we speak. Instead? Its fcukking dead s0n!!!


But Im the dickhead here!!!!!!


Oh..........and ps.........except for some cheesy insignificant climate legislation, we wont see dick in the area of climate legilsation for at least the next 6 years and probably closer to 10 thanks to GOP state redistricting efforts thus keeping the GOP in control of the HOUSE until 2020. ( go google it s0n.....there are literally a million links on it)

 

[newpolitics]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

 

[skookerasbil]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

You know.......you're right s0n..........nobody is profiting from nor are there any special interests related to AGW. Its 100% just good intentions!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

Grants being paid out through the educational system for studies in the area of global warming, yeah, I know that is likely not much, but that is one way. They can speak for 100, 500, 1,000 dollars like Al gore or james hansen and become rich? I have NO problem with them making money through doing either. But just saying.

Hell some of the oil corporations support green energy and are pushing for it. Me, I would rather have good old nuclear, which don't cover tens of thousands of square miles to power a city just to destroy a area with solar panels to be the energy that makes us "green". There is a green house gas that is a good 14,000 times stronger then co2 that is used to make those panels, too. Think about that.


So let me see...
most of these panels would be in a sunny area
Sunny area=deserts, which you would destroy tens of thousands of miles of protected land. Animals would die.

Wind mills---The last time I checked needs to have wind to make power, which you would need to to put within windy area's. I like the floating ocean based idea's being floated around. Put them in the middle of the ocean on giant rafts of 500 a piece, or maybe 1,500 a piece. Same could be worked out for the solar panels.

Yes the floating idea is a good idea!

I agree the oil and gas corporations make a shit load of money, but billions of people use there services, meaning that they make a lot of money. What is so wrong with it?

I'm not totally against solar or wind power, but don't feel it can be used for the base load of a sound energy structure. But as a supplement.


I think it has been pretty well proven that we are warming without any doubt at all, but the question is how does the negative forcing work with it and how much warming do we have?

 

[newpolitics]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

You know.......you're right s0n..........nobody is profiting from nor are there any special interests related to AGW. Its 100% just good intentions!!

Yeah. Pretty much. Unlike you and your denial of it to protect big business interests and your job, or to protect you from the fact that you simply don't understand the concepts involved in global warming because it is scientifically too involved. I don't know. I didn't ask for your opinion anyway.

Our whole infrastructure is set up for oil. Tell me how you could possibly think that there aren't massive interests to preserve that, and willing to do anything, including blocking and distorting the truth, to meet that end? This is common sense to me. You people will find any information you can to support your theory, but you are not starting out with a blank slate, and simply looking for the truth. There is one truth. Either we are causing or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on which one is better for the economy.

 

[skookerasbil]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

You know.......you're right s0n..........nobody is profiting from nor are there any special interests related to AGW. Its 100% just good intentions!!

Yeah. Pretty much. Unlike you and your denial of it to protect big business interests and your job, or to protect you from the fact that you simply don't understand the concepts involved in global warming because it is scientifically too involved. I don't know. I didn't ask for your opinion anyway.

Our whole infrastructure is set up for oil. Tell me how you could possibly think that there aren't massive interests to preserve that, and willing to do anything, including blocking and distorting the truth, to meet that end? This is common sense to me. You people will find any information you can to support your theory, but you are not starting out with a blank slate, and simply looking for the truth. There is one truth. Either we are causing or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on which one is better for the economy.

Indeed. I dont get to choose.........but thankfully, there are far more people who think like me, so I win. You want to talk about truth..........there ya go s0n!!!

The whole world now looks at Spain and see's an economy in the gigantic shitter. You see s0n........they embraced the same kind of economy that you would sign onto today!! They went head long into being green and fcukked themselves = 2 jobs lost for every green job gained. THAT is called far left economics fAiL.

Spain Admits “Green Jobs” Program A Disaster




The jerky environmental k00ks fail to comprehend something. That the politics are joined at the hip with the science shit. THAT decides what is better for the economy. The majority ( thats how it works in this country) just isnt quite enamoured with being forced to bend over and take a telephone up the pooper because a bunch of fringe k00ks get all hysterical every time an AGW scientist pulls a new paper out of their ass.

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way Newpolitics..........your level of naive is profound. Dont fret however, most of those who buy into the whole "global warming" crap are equally part of the hopelessly duped crowd.

I suggest you take a gandor over to Amazon.com and grab this. Even if you still want to fall all over yourself embracing the science shit there is a whole lot more you need to make yourself aware of..........just trying to help here. I dont want you to be in some social gathering and saying stupid stuff like there are no special interests or profit takers associated with the green movement

 

[westwall]

The only real data on this subject is the fact that those who have successfuly discredited 'climate change' and 'global warming' were paid lots of money by big energy companies. LOTS. They tried to create doubt in the minds of the population that global warming was real, in order to save their profit margins. Taht is all you need to know. Their information isn't science. It's politics. That's enough truth for me right there. Global warming is real and man made. Everyone who doesn't believe so and tries and tries to convince us otherwise, **** you.

Totally untrue my friend. The alarmists have discredited themselves. Anytime you resort to falsification of data to support a computer model you are in trouble. And for the record the alarmists have recieved far more money then any group fighting them.

Try reading something other then your cultist nonesnse sometime. Try reading some real science that is based on empirical data and not on computer models that are incapable of recreating the weather that occured 5 days ago.

Although you type it calmly, everything you say is pretty much bullshit. It doesn't matter how much they have recieved, if what you say is even true, it matters where that money is coming from, and why. Environmentalists only concern is the environment, hence the term environmentalists. Lobbyists and Lawyers, and the 'scientists' they hire to carry a credible title when delivering this message to the public, care for nothing but money. This is so obvious to me, I don't know how you can continue to feed yourself a lie.

I guess it doesn't matter though. The human race is going to die out anyway... we don't deserve this planet, and it is in the momentous time in history, that assholes with the attitude that you have, will be responsible for it, largely. Really, it is the money makers in Washington, but it is with your support, and your trying to silence those who believe the truth, that do their work for them. For that, I say, **** you, again. Stop trying to silence common sense and logic because something as transient and fleeting as the American economy to continue working well, and you want a job: that's all it comes down to. You have no reason to take such a strong stance against AGW, except to save your own ass from the actions that would be taken if AGW was taken seriously by the administration. Be at least honest with yourself. I care for the survival of our species, not for money or jobs. Our earth will weather any storm. WE however, will die. Obviously, you don't care about your children or grandchildren, because all you think about is now.

Typical response from an uneducated cultist. My daughter is five now and I have a great deal of concern for her well being when I am no longer around to protect her. That's why I am educating her in all manner of things so that no matter what happens to the world she will thrive.

You clearly don't care for the human race by your very comments. Your ignorance of science and the scientific method and your juvenile use of insults belies your intent. You are a clueless cultist who only cares about your religion. If you truly belive the human race doesn't deserve this planet then do the right thing and jump off of a building.

You eugenitists allways claim there are too many people on the planet, fine, do the planet a favour and end yourself.

 

[westwall]

The only real data on this subject is the fact that those who have successfuly discredited 'climate change' and 'global warming' were paid lots of money by big energy companies. LOTS. They tried to create doubt in the minds of the population that global warming was real, in order to save their profit margins. Taht is all you need to know. Their information isn't science. It's politics. That's enough truth for me right there. Global warming is real and man made. Everyone who doesn't believe so and tries and tries to convince us otherwise, **** you.

Totally untrue my friend. The alarmists have discredited themselves. Anytime you resort to falsification of data to support a computer model you are in trouble. And for the record the alarmists have recieved far more money then any group fighting them.

Try reading something other then your cultist nonesnse sometime. Try reading some real science that is based on empirical data and not on computer models that are incapable of recreating the weather that occured 5 days ago.

Although you type it calmly, everything you say is pretty much bullshit. It doesn't matter how much they have recieved, if what you say is even true, it matters where that money is coming from, and why. Environmentalists only concern is the environment, hence the term environmentalists. Lobbyists and Lawyers, and the 'scientists' they hire to carry a credible title when delivering this message to the public, care for nothing but money. This is so obvious to me, I don't know how you can continue to feed yourself a lie.

I guess it doesn't matter though. The human race is going to die out anyway... we don't deserve this planet, and it is in the momentous time in history, that assholes with the attitude that you have, will be responsible for it, largely. Really, it is the money makers in Washington, but it is with your support, and your trying to silence those who believe the truth, that do their work for them. For that, I say, **** you, again. Stop trying to silence common sense and logic because something as transient and fleeting as the American economy to continue working well, and you want a job: that's all it comes down to. You have no reason to take such a strong stance against AGW, except to save your own ass from the actions that would be taken if AGW was taken seriously by the administration. Be at least honest with yourself. I care for the survival of our species, not for money or jobs. Our earth will weather any storm. WE however, will die. Obviously, you don't care about your children or grandchildren, because all you think about is now.

You're a ******* sheep that listens to the power and money interests in Washington and doesn't give a shit about anybody else but yourself. You'll take whatever 'science' you can to disprove AGW, but all of that anti-AGW science that you ironically hold as gospel is funded by big oil and the powers that be who have a political and profit-saving agenda. it's very simple what is going on- it all comes down to profits for big corporations, and are helping them do that, you dumbass, as well as the rest of the dumb motherfuckers here.

Gosh but you're stupid. Goldman Sachs is poised to make over a TRILLION dollars if Cap and Tax gets passed. The oil companies as well will make TRILLIONS you fool. FOR NOTHING! You seem to forget that ENRON and Ken Lay (you remember them don't you?) were instrumental in getting the Kyoto agreements signed.

Talk about an uneducated fool, you're at the top of the pile.

Goldman Sachs makes millions no matter what happens. They have their fingers in everything, including within our government, so that is a nonargument. It is simply placing a bet on which they already practically know the outcome, because they are controlling the outcome with the power they have in Washington. Its the same with oil companies. That you think hints at anything, is humorous to me. Try either explaining yourself a little better, or providing links. I am always open to learn about new things. I do want to hear both sides, but thus far, you people have only 'hunches' and 'feelings that it is all a conspiracy.' It's ridiculous. You are politically motivated conservatives who only want to believe that the 'liberal media' is responsible for all of it, and 'those damn liberal tree-huggers' are "at it again." It's a politcal thing for you. it's hatred for the left, with complete disregard for the actual science.

Not an argument? OK lefty, here's a question for you....what's the difference between millions and trillions. I know you guys aren't good with numbers but give it a try.

 

[westwall]

s0n........heres the poop..............

The true believers are getting their clocks cleaned in the court of public opinion which is all I and tens of millions of others give a rats ass about. Nobody cares about the science anymore except those who embrace the hysterical view of the world. How much climate legislation is being discussed in Congress over the past two years? DICK......thats how much!! The subject is radioactive because the public doesnt want to hear jack about paying a single dime to combat mythical science. The views of the k00ks on here represent a fringe sliver of the American public. Most people hear about global warming these days and say, "meh"..........which is a beautiful thing. Most of the radical tree huggers have zero real responsibilities in life and can afford to spend time obsessing on hysterical stuff. People with real lives and real responsibilities are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to fcukking busy to give a shit, particularly since recently theyve learned that to become a true believer means you'll be required to open your wallet..................WIDE. Every single poll shows the attitude of Americans for that shit is "FCUKK YOU!!!".


Indeed............the deniers? Not losing.

So this doesn't mean anything? What happens if it is the truth? I'm sure westwall--- that has a phd in the field of science cares?



Yeah it does concern me as a serious future negative forcing. As you increase water vapor for one you do get more positive forcing with the green house side, but you also get more cloud cover and as the arctic warms that part of the planet shall have more clouds. I've looked through papers that show that this could very well counter co2's warming ability much like sulfur and the solar minimum is currently doing. If all 3 where to come together it could be enough to cause a large enough negative to cause the global temperatures to go down.

The global warmers at the IPCC are to one sided and not able to think this through. First it has been proven that the 50s, 60s and 70s cooling of .1 to .15 was because of the developed worlds sulfur emissions, but then they wouldn't even count the fact that china and India are putting a crap load of it into the atmosphere over the past 10 years. This and the solar minimum from hell have teamed up over the past 8 years and this could come into play within the next few decades.



////

The solar output peaked in 1950 and has been slowly going down since, so you can't explain the warming through solar output since. About .15-.25 of the warming from 1880-1940 was in fact caused by the sun--something like 40 percent of the warming. Sulfer during the 1950s-1970s caused about .1 or so cooling. How the world do you explain wirebender or anyone the forcing for the .4c of warming since 1980 without co2 or other green house forcing(water vapor, methane). YOU CAN'T say the sun because it has decreased since the 1950s and has just taken a giant crap since 2003.

You can't get Y without knowing the reason behind it. You can't discount the effects of co2 without then needing to find the why's of the increase in temperature, which is caused by increase forcing. What is causing it?

200+x=220 and 220=y, so what you have here is to figure out what is causing the forcing that completes the equation. Of course you could say the sun is the 200, which makes up the vast amount of the Y. X is what ever extra forcing. You then could go on and add a z because x could be the natural forcing of co2, water vapor and differences within solar output within shorter time scales. So z would be what ever man is causing. So lets say the sun+the natural green house gases are now know and they're 15, so x=15. Now you have 200+15+z=220. You could figure that out to be 5=z, but if not co2---then what? What would z be that is causing the 5? Most of science believes Z to be co2 caused by man.

What I'm saying is you can show co2 wrong, but then you need to find out what is causing the forcing for the warming...

Matthew,


Most of science doesn't know. Only computer models created by a small group of "scientists" believe that COs is the cause. Historically we see empirical evidence that CO2 was not the cause of past warming. Photographs of the US subs at the North Pole in open water, newspaper reports from the 1920's that describe the same thing prove beyond doubt that CO2 is not a proximal cause of the warming that we are seeing today.




Here is a excerpt from Dr. Pielke Sr's blog that details the problems with the "consensus" argument...


“The importance of decadal climate variability (DCV) research is being increasingly recognized, including by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An improved understanding of DCV is very important because stakeholders and policymakers want to know the likely climate trajectory for the coming decades for applications to water resources, agriculture, energy, and infrastructure development. Responding to this demand, many climate modeling groups in the United States, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere are gearing up to assess the potential for decadal climate predictions. The magnitudes of regional DCV often exceed those associated with the trends resulting from anthropogenic changes.”

“PREDICTABILITY AND PREDICTION. Initial decadal prediction efforts in the last few years show predictive skill of global average temperature up to a decade in advance using both initial conditions and the climate change signal created by already emitted greenhouse gases.”




Confessions of Members Of The Climate Science Community | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

 

[westwall]

Another true believer has joined the forum!!! Cool.......add another who has joined the ranks of the hopelessly duped PC zombies........ready to jump in hook, line and stinker to fcukk over the future of our kids based upon a hail Mary pass guess based upon this naive notion that computer models are accurate. C'mon...........

Going green is gay s0n...........even the UN said this week..........it'll cost 76 trillion to do so.

Global Warming doesn't rest on Computer models. Get that through your thick head. They use the models to predict, but that doesn't change the present situation of global warming, or the study of the past, and its predictions of the future without computers. Just because a computer model got something wrong doesn't mean you scrap the whole theory. That is the dumbest conclusion ever, yet you want AGW scrapped so bad, you're willing to say that. It's bullshit nonetheless.

Every study that the climatologists use to carry on their "science" is derived from computer models...get a clue. Not only that they are asking us to believe they can predict events 100's of years in the future when they can't recreate the weather that we know occured last week. Get a clue.

 

[westwall]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

You are wrong. Climatologists resort to some very well known words in the conmans repertoire, namely "could", "may", "might", "possibly" and a whole host of other words that don't say anything. Science, at least a hard science like my own, deal in words like "will, "won't", "cannot", etc. Do you see the difference?

Here's a hint. If I tell you that "if you do "X", "Y" will occur, it will. Or I am wrong. Proveable wrong. Climatologists tell us that if it gets too warm, it's AGWs fault. If it gets too cold it's AGWs fault, too wet , too dry, it's all mans fault. That is a non-falsifiable thesis and that is pseudo science.

 

[westwall]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

You know.......you're right s0n..........nobody is profiting from nor are there any special interests related to AGW. Its 100% just good intentions!!

Yeah. Pretty much. Unlike you and your denial of it to protect big business interests and your job, or to protect you from the fact that you simply don't understand the concepts involved in global warming because it is scientifically too involved. I don't know. I didn't ask for your opinion anyway.

Our whole infrastructure is set up for oil. Tell me how you could possibly think that there aren't massive interests to preserve that, and willing to do anything, including blocking and distorting the truth, to meet that end? This is common sense to me. You people will find any information you can to support your theory, but you are not starting out with a blank slate, and simply looking for the truth. There is one truth. Either we are causing or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on which one is better for the economy.

Here's the problem with your thinking. According to your side we have allready hit Peak Oil. Thus no matter how much the oil people are lying, and no matter how oil centric our society is, we are going to run out. Right?

So riddle me this batman, if everything you say is true, why would the oil companies ignore all the evidence from your side and try and drive the bus of civilization over a cliff.
If what you guys are saying wouldn't it make more sense for the oil companies to invest in the next technology to power society when the oil and coal run out? Hmmmmmm?

You see, you're arguments are a lie. You don't care about civilization or society in general, you are like good old Pol Pot and your dream world is a agrarian society where everybody gets to eke out a bare existence supporting the ruling class which you no doubt perceive yourself to be.

And that is the underlying problem with everything you say. If Peak Oil is true, all you have to do is wait and the oil companies die out do to lack of product. Green energies then take over because there is nothing else. But no, indstead you manufacture panics to try and frighten the savages so that they will willingly give their power to you the "benevolent tyrants of the green religion" to dole out the scraps as you see fit.

Your problem is people have access to information from many more sources then the "high Priests" of the green movement.

That's why you are losing.

 

[daveman]

Here is testimony of a top NASA scientist who tried to publish scientific results alluding to AGW, and was told by the administration to not speak about it. Wow... what a democracy!!

YouTube - ‪Global Warming and George Bush‬‏

Oh, that's Hansen, who's used his celebrity status to enrich himself in violation of Federal ethics rules.

NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups to Enrich Himself - FoxNews.com

He's defending his cash cow, not the environment.

 

[daveman]

I want somebody to tell me exactly, how people might profit from AGW being true... we will have to overhaul our entire infrastructure which is built for petroleum. That is massive profit losses for all oil companies, so how can any say they are making MONEY! Unless, they are the ones replacing the technologies, this arguement makes no sense to me. I feel like you people say that just to say it, without it really meaning anything.

The profit, and the goal, of the AGW cult is not money (except for Gore), but political power.

They want government control over individual lives. They want to tell you how much power you can use, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of light bulbs you can buy. Ultimately, ever decision will be made for you for your own good.

Further, another observation is that, like with Evolution, you are waiting to this %100 confirmation that AGW is true. Nothing is %100. You are waiting for more conclusive evidence.

We are waiting for any evidence at all. So far, none has been forthcoming. It's all smoke and mirrors, falsifications, distortions, and wishful thinking.

And your leftist wet dream is simply not enough justification to cripple the economies of the entire Western world.