The Truth About Climate Change

[gslack]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

LOL, Michael Collins, a manufacturing consultant... HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Here is the guy who wrote that crap article...

Management Consultant, Writer and Trainer Michael P. Collins | MPC Management
he wrote the following on his site..

Michael P. Collins is fast becoming the leading spokesman for small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs). His refreshing and insightful insights into the problems facing SMMs gives audiences much food for thought. Michael has a unique way of transforming very complex concepts and strategies into simple straightforward talk that is audience driven.

Wow a real climate expert too....

Tell ya what I will go and see wht the pope thinks of global warming call him an expert now....

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

LOL, Michael Collins, a manufacturing consultant... HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Here is the guy who wrote that crap article...

Management Consultant, Writer and Trainer Michael P. Collins | MPC Management
he wrote the following on his site..

Michael P. Collins is fast becoming the leading spokesman for small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs). His refreshing and insightful insights into the problems facing SMMs gives audiences much food for thought. Michael has a unique way of transforming very complex concepts and strategies into simple straightforward talk that is audience driven.

Wow a real climate expert too....

Tell ya what I will go and see wht the pope thinks of global warming call him an expert now....

OK, dumb ass. Here is what the experts state;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[gslack]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

LOL, Michael Collins, a manufacturing consultant... HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Here is the guy who wrote that crap article...

Management Consultant, Writer and Trainer Michael P. Collins | MPC Management
he wrote the following on his site..

Michael P. Collins is fast becoming the leading spokesman for small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs). His refreshing and insightful insights into the problems facing SMMs gives audiences much food for thought. Michael has a unique way of transforming very complex concepts and strategies into simple straightforward talk that is audience driven.

Wow a real climate expert too....

Tell ya what I will go and see wht the pope thinks of global warming call him an expert now....

OK, dumb ass. Here is what the experts state;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

SO you have no defense for ignorantly posting the guy who is NOT an expert? Yeah knew that tool, and the AGU? Who cares that one scientific body buys into AGW theory? Matter of fact ONE of the scientific bodies that push the dam theory anyway... Dude its like trying a case by simply asking the defendant if he did it or not...

 

[westwall]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

LOL, Michael Collins, a manufacturing consultant... HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Here is the guy who wrote that crap article...

Management Consultant, Writer and Trainer Michael P. Collins | MPC Management
he wrote the following on his site..

Michael P. Collins is fast becoming the leading spokesman for small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs). His refreshing and insightful insights into the problems facing SMMs gives audiences much food for thought. Michael has a unique way of transforming very complex concepts and strategies into simple straightforward talk that is audience driven.

Wow a real climate expert too....

Tell ya what I will go and see wht the pope thinks of global warming call him an expert now....

OK, dumb ass. Here is what the experts state;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

Oh olfraud you lying sack of shit you! Nice attempt there MENSA BOY. Here is the CURRENT position put forth by the AGU. I trust even a partisan hack lying turd like you can see the difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in FYI #11, the American Geophysical Union on January 28 held a press conference to release a position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change. The full text of the statement is provided below. It is also available on AGU's Web Page at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change.html:
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have substantially increased as a consequence of fossil fuel combustion and other human activities. These elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases are predicted to persist in the atmosphere for times ranging to thousands of years. Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect the Earth-atmosphere energy balance, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and thereby exerting a warming influence at the Earth's surface.

"Although greenhouse gas concentrations and their climatic influences are projected to increase, the detailed response of the system is uncertain. Principal sources of this uncertainty are the climate system's inherent complexity and natural variability. The increase in global mean surface temperatures over the past 150 years appears to be unusual in the context of the last few centuries, but it is not clearly outside the range of climate variability of the last few thousand years. The geologic record of the more distant past provides evidence of larger climate variations associated with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These changes appear to be consistent with present understanding of the radiative properties of carbon dioxide and of the influence of climate on the carbon cycle. There is no known geologic precedent for the transfer of carbon from the Earth's crust to atmospheric carbon dioxide, in quantities comparable to the burning of fossil fuels, without simultaneous changes in other parts of the carbon cycle and climate system. This close coupling between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate suggests that a change in one would in all likelihood be accompanied by a change in the other.

"Present understanding of the Earth climate system provides a compelling basis for legitimate public concern over future global- and regional-scale changes resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. These changes are predicted to include increases in global mean surface temperatures, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea levels, and changes in the biosphere. Understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved over the past decade, and predictive capabilities are advancing. However, there are significant scientific uncertainties, for example, in predictions of local effects of climate change, occurrence of extreme weather events, effects of aerosols, changes in clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. In view of the complexity of the Earth climate system, uncertainty in its description and in the prediction of changes will never be completely eliminated.

"Because of these uncertainties, there is much public debate over the extent to which increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused or will cause climate change, and over potential actions to limit and/or respond to climate change. It is important that public debate take into account the extent of scientific knowledge and the uncertainties. Science cannot be the sole source of guidance on how society should respond to climate issues. Nonetheless, scientific understanding based on peer-reviewed research must be central to informed decision-making. AGU calls for an enhancement of research to improve the quantification of anthropogenic influences on climate. To this end, international programs of research are essential. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in such programs and in scientific assessments and policy discussions.

"The world may already be committed to some degree of human-caused climate change, and further buildup of greenhouse gas concentrations may be expected to cause further change. Some of these changes may be beneficial and others damaging for different parts of the world. However, the rapidity and uneven geographic distribution of these changes could be very disruptive. AGU recommends the development and evaluation of strategies such as emissions reduction, carbon sequestration, and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. AGU believes that the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human-induced climate change and/or the adaptation to it."

 

[wirebender]

I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

You are kidding right? You and I have been through some of the science and the fact is, konradv, you aren't up to even the basics. You don't even grasp the difference between visible light and IR.

 

[wirebender]

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Your guy reveals himself to be a hysterical handwringer in his first sentence. Describe how you believe the earth's climate is out of balance and provide some observed proof to support the claim. What is going on now that is outside of the realm of natural variability? What is going on now that is even close to the borders of natural variability?

The answer is nothing at all is going on in the climate ANYWHERE that even approaches the limits of natural variability. If the climate is well within the boundries of natural variability, exactly how does one claim that the climate is clearly out of balance?

 

[konradv]

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Your guy reveals himself to be a hysterical handwringer in his first sentence. Describe how you believe the earth's climate is out of balance and provide some observed proof to support the claim. What is going on now that is outside of the realm of natural variability? What is going on now that is even close to the borders of natural variability?

The answer is nothing at all is going on in the climate ANYWHERE that even approaches the limits of natural variability. If the climate is well within the boundries of natural variability, exactly how does one claim that the climate is clearly out of balance?

Because we haven't had this much CO2, and adding more everyday, in the times humans evolved on earth. The fact that it may have been higher earlier is irrelevant. The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions. To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our computer models show that only cold fusion can counteract the 5 to 7 degrees computer modeled increase in temperature from a 100PPM increase in CO2.

 

[gslack]

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

Your guy reveals himself to be a hysterical handwringer in his first sentence. Describe how you believe the earth's climate is out of balance and provide some observed proof to support the claim. What is going on now that is outside of the realm of natural variability? What is going on now that is even close to the borders of natural variability?

The answer is nothing at all is going on in the climate ANYWHERE that even approaches the limits of natural variability. If the climate is well within the boundries of natural variability, exactly how does one claim that the climate is clearly out of balance?

Because we haven't had this much CO2, and adding more everyday, in the times humans evolved on earth. The fact that it may have been higher earlier is irrelevant. The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions. To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

You're completely full of it once again kornhole..

Because we haven't had this much CO2, and adding more everyday, in the times humans evolved on earth.

BULL! We have had more CO2 many times in the past, and your own scientists acknowledge this fact.

The fact that it may have been higher earlier is irrelevant.

Why? because you want it to be? Don't be ignorant junior, of course it isn't irrelevant. If that was irrelevant than the current high co2 is irrelevant as well.

The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions.

If thats true than why all of your concern? You really think we can't survive a 5 degree temp increase spread out over a couple hundred years? LOL, that just ignorant..

To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

No whats ludicrous is you contradicting yourself in a post while screaming about science...

You said CO2 being higher in the past is irrelevant, now you say CO2 isn't irrelevant, you can't have it both ways kornhole, thats not scientific nor logical..

 

[wirebender]

Because we haven't had this much CO2, and adding more everyday, in the times humans evolved on earth.

Of course we have. I posted readings taken from the 1800's where atmospheric CO2 was well over 400ppm and during the 1930's and 1940's as well. And the fact remains that 390ppm of atmospheric CO2 is far far far below the limits of natural variability. Even if the present atmospheric CO2 were 3000ppm, it would not be outside the boundries of natural variability.

The fact that it may have been higher earlier is irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. The fact is that atmospheric CO2 has been much higher and the climate didn't experience any sort of runaway global warming as you guys predict. Hell, atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of ppm while the climate was decending into ice ages. The fact is that CO2 does not drive the climate. It isn't even a backseat driver.

The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions.

Since we can't alter natural cycles we are along for the ride. We either adapt, or die. Believe me, it is much easier to adapt to warming than to adapt to cooling. Life has flourished on earth during the warm times; life is hard when it is cold.

To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

CO2 does not act as a blanket. To say so is to either acknowledge that you are a victim of a hoax or are a deliberate liar. A packet of infrared energy takes 49 milliseconds to travel from the surface of the earth, through the toposphere and into space even encountering CO2. CO2 is not holding anything in or acting like a blanket. If you believe it is, describe the mechanism and show me the math because I can easily show you the math that says that it isn't happening the way you claim.

 

[konradv]

You two don't seem to understand the science at all!!! Call me all the names you want, but it's quite clear why most scientists don't accept your analyses. You either come up with wierd science that even the other skeptics often don't accept(wirebender) or try to confuse the issues with irrelevancies, like what the CO2 levels were before man took the stage(gslack). Either way, it only serves to fool the unsophisticated. Given time the hoax being perpetrated by the "coolers" will crumble of its own accord, especially when it's realized by the majority that their argument is totally political with the mere veneer of acience.

 

[gslack]

You two don't seem to understand the science at all!!! Call me all the names you want, but it's quite clear why most scientists don't accept your analyses. You either come up with wierd science that even the other skeptics often don't accept(wirebender) or try to confuse the issues with irrelevancies, like what the CO2 levels were before man took the stage(gslack). Either way, it only serves to fool the unsophisticated. Given time the hoax being perpetrated by the "coolers" will crumble of its own accord, especially when it's realized by the majority that their argument is totally political with the mere veneer of acience.

Sure junior, sure.... And you aren't one of the faithful are you...

Dude you just tried to deny factual logic, in favor of your side being right... And you try and claim I have a political agenda??

 

[signelect]

LOL, Michael Collins, a manufacturing consultant... HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Here is the guy who wrote that crap article...

Management Consultant, Writer and Trainer Michael P. Collins | MPC Management
he wrote the following on his site..


Wow a real climate expert too....

Tell ya what I will go and see wht the pope thinks of global warming call him an expert now....

OK, dumb ass. Here is what the experts state;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

SO you have no defense for ignorantly posting the guy who is NOT an expert? Yeah knew that tool, and the AGU? Who cares that one scientific body buys into AGW theory? Matter of fact ONE of the scientific bodies that push the dam theory anyway... Dude its like trying a case by simply asking the defendant if he did it or not...

Are you serious? The earth is burning idiot and if we don't do anything about it we are going to burn. Have you not noticed every year it seems to get hotter and hotter for longer periods of time. I live in texas and that's one of the first places you will feel the heat. Global warming has been being watched for a long time and it has been said that we are getting warmer and warmer.

Honestly i think the ignorant should be you for not truly understanding global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But our models show that the implementation of cold fusion combustion engines cause an identical and contemporaneous decrease to the rise in temperature cause by Manade Global Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

You two don't seem to understand the science at all!!! Call me all the names you want, but it's quite clear why most scientists don't accept your analyses. You either come up with wierd science that even the other skeptics often don't accept(wirebender) or try to confuse the issues with irrelevancies, like what the CO2 levels were before man took the stage(gslack). Either way, it only serves to fool the unsophisticated. Given time the hoax being perpetrated by the "coolers" will crumble of its own accord, especially when it's realized by the majority that their argument is totally political with the mere veneer of acience.

Nobody gives a fcukk abut the science anymore s0n...........thats all conservatives like me care about. People saw the k00k predictions that never materialized for over a decade........then they saw repeated attempts to fcukk with the data.

INdeed......on Capitol HIll these days, if you're a representative and even mumble the word "global warming", you might as well hold up a big humongous sign that says, "Im a radioactive mofu!!!".

This debate has become nothing more than an internet hobby for liberal nutballs with social relatedness issues. These mental cases are falling all over themselves trying to post up the latest temperature numbers as if its going to create some kind of groundswell of public sentiment in support of blowing up our fossil fuel driven industries overnght. And what else can I do except sit back at my PC here and laugh my balls off while virtually every elected representative in America says, "MEH"

 

[wirebender]

You two don't seem to understand the science at all!!!

Now that is funny konradv. You telling me that I don't understand the science at all. You telling me that when you can't wade through some fairly simple calculations and then understand what the results mean.

You either come up with wierd science that even the other skeptics often don't accept(wirebender) or try to confuse the issues with irrelevancies, like what the CO2 levels were before man took the stage(gslack). Either way, it only serves to fool the unsophisticated.

First, since you don't have a clue when it comes to science, you don't have the slightest idea whether I am right or wrong. Your disbelief amounts to nothing more than your faith. Second, are you actually saying that you are scientifically sophisticated? Is that what you are claiming now?

Given time the hoax being perpetrated by the "coolers" will crumble of its own accord, especially when it's realized by the majority that their argument is totally political with the mere veneer of acience.

Sorry guy, it is the alarmist hoax that is crumbling. The more actual science that comes in the worse it looks for you and yours.

 

[Father Time]

Fact: Plant life required carbon dioxide to exist.

Fact: Plants emit oxygen, required for humans to live.

So, we do away with as much carbon dioxide as possible, killing (or at least weakening) plant life which return the favour by giving off less oxygen.

Hey, presto! We all die and Earth goes on as it always has.

Fact: Animals exhale CO2
Fact: Plants have survived from the CO2 obtained from animals and humans way before humans even existed or started using fossil fuels.

So there's almost no chance of all plants dying from global warming regulations.

 

[westwall]

It doesn't. You're just creating a strawman. Show us who's doing that. I don't mean on the board. We're just talking here, not doing science. Show us a real researcher that's doing it.

I know you're not doing science.

The point being what, you can't answer my question so you choose the usual denier trick of attacking the messenger? I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

In consideration of the fact you don't understand middle school level science I will have to most strenuously disagree!

That's rich kid, rich.

 

[westwall]

Your guy reveals himself to be a hysterical handwringer in his first sentence. Describe how you believe the earth's climate is out of balance and provide some observed proof to support the claim. What is going on now that is outside of the realm of natural variability? What is going on now that is even close to the borders of natural variability?

The answer is nothing at all is going on in the climate ANYWHERE that even approaches the limits of natural variability. If the climate is well within the boundries of natural variability, exactly how does one claim that the climate is clearly out of balance?

Because we haven't had this much CO2, and adding more everyday, in the times humans evolved on earth. The fact that it may have been higher earlier is irrelevant. The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions. To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

You're completely full of it once again kornhole..



BULL! We have had more CO2 many times in the past, and your own scientists acknowledge this fact.



Why? because you want it to be? Don't be ignorant junior, of course it isn't irrelevant. If that was irrelevant than the current high co2 is irrelevant as well.

The concern isn't about Earth, it'll take care of itself, but our place in it and how we and civilization as we know it will survive under radically changed environmental conditions.

If thats true than why all of your concern? You really think we can't survive a 5 degree temp increase spread out over a couple hundred years? LOL, that just ignorant..

To say Co2 isn't a concern, when we KNOW it acts as a blanket keeping hreat in, is ludicrous.

No whats ludicrous is you contradicting yourself in a post while screaming about science...

You said CO2 being higher in the past is irrelevant, now you say CO2 isn't irrelevant, you can't have it both ways kornhole, thats not scientific nor logical..

Oh c'mon gslack, this is konrad we're talking about....he's done more "science" then all of us put together!

 

[westwall]

OK, dumb ass. Here is what the experts state;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

SO you have no defense for ignorantly posting the guy who is NOT an expert? Yeah knew that tool, and the AGU? Who cares that one scientific body buys into AGW theory? Matter of fact ONE of the scientific bodies that push the dam theory anyway... Dude its like trying a case by simply asking the defendant if he did it or not...

Are you serious? The earth is burning idiot and if we don't do anything about it we are going to burn. Have you not noticed every year it seems to get hotter and hotter for longer periods of time. I live in texas and that's one of the first places you will feel the heat. Global warming has been being watched for a long time and it has been said that we are getting warmer and warmer.

Honestly i think the ignorant should be you for not truly understanding global warming.

What was that olfraud? I suggest you read the new AGU position. Here it is again so you're not too confused. Amaszing how you can't seem to find the most up to date position paper. Why is that?


As reported in FYI #11, the American Geophysical Union on January 28 held a press conference to release a position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change. The full text of the statement is provided below. It is also available on AGU's Web Page at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change.html:
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have substantially increased as a consequence of fossil fuel combustion and other human activities. These elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases are predicted to persist in the atmosphere for times ranging to thousands of years. Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases affect the Earth-atmosphere energy balance, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and thereby exerting a warming influence at the Earth's surface.

"Although greenhouse gas concentrations and their climatic influences are projected to increase, the detailed response of the system is uncertain. Principal sources of this uncertainty are the climate system's inherent complexity and natural variability. The increase in global mean surface temperatures over the past 150 years appears to be unusual in the context of the last few centuries, but it is not clearly outside the range of climate variability of the last few thousand years. The geologic record of the more distant past provides evidence of larger climate variations associated with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These changes appear to be consistent with present understanding of the radiative properties of carbon dioxide and of the influence of climate on the carbon cycle. There is no known geologic precedent for the transfer of carbon from the Earth's crust to atmospheric carbon dioxide, in quantities comparable to the burning of fossil fuels, without simultaneous changes in other parts of the carbon cycle and climate system. This close coupling between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate suggests that a change in one would in all likelihood be accompanied by a change in the other.

"Present understanding of the Earth climate system provides a compelling basis for legitimate public concern over future global- and regional-scale changes resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. These changes are predicted to include increases in global mean surface temperatures, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea levels, and changes in the biosphere. Understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved over the past decade, and predictive capabilities are advancing. However, there are significant scientific uncertainties, for example, in predictions of local effects of climate change, occurrence of extreme weather events, effects of aerosols, changes in clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. In view of the complexity of the Earth climate system, uncertainty in its description and in the prediction of changes will never be completely eliminated.

"Because of these uncertainties, there is much public debate over the extent to which increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have caused or will cause climate change, and over potential actions to limit and/or respond to climate change. It is important that public debate take into account the extent of scientific knowledge and the uncertainties. Science cannot be the sole source of guidance on how society should respond to climate issues. Nonetheless, scientific understanding based on peer-reviewed research must be central to informed decision-making. AGU calls for an enhancement of research to improve the quantification of anthropogenic influences on climate. To this end, international programs of research are essential. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in such programs and in scientific assessments and policy discussions.

"The world may already be committed to some degree of human-caused climate change, and further buildup of greenhouse gas concentrations may be expected to cause further change. Some of these changes may be beneficial and others damaging for different parts of the world. However, the rapidity and uneven geographic distribution of these changes could be very disruptive. AGU recommends the development and evaluation of strategies such as emissions reduction, carbon sequestration, and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. AGU believes that the present level of scientific uncertainty does not justify inaction in the mitigation of human-induced climate change and/or the adaptation to it."