Global Warming or Global Cooling?

[b0b3rt]

Slightly off-topic, but it would be nice if US politicians could get over their fear of nuclear energy and start building standardized nuclear energy plants (as well as recycling facilities).

 

[Brain]

Yeah, it would be nice. Nuclear power gets more bad press than it deserves :(

 

[VKCA]

My dad has been preaching that the ice age will come for sooo long, and after this cool summer, and wintery-fall, he thinks he's right. I'm just hoping for a good snowboarding season.

 

[Tortferngatr]

So....your telling me that producing hundreds of tons of CO2 a year will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the Earth? Ever?

That's like saying dumping fuel onto a fire will not effect it at all. Ever.

And Sunspots are cooler areas of the sun. How is their appearance heating the Earth? Or am I mis-reading the graph?

67 million years ago? How did they go that far back?

The above statement runs on the assumption CO2 produces major climate effects. CO2 tends to come after hotter temperatures, not the other way around. Sunspots...I don't know exactly, only that they somehow affect our climate.

 

[Eraddd]

Slightly off-topic, but it would be nice if US politicians could get over their fear of nuclear energy and start building standardized nuclear energy plants (as well as recycling facilities).

Agreed. Everyone keeps on bitching about storing nuclear waste in mountains, when in fact, Colorado's mountains emit more radiation than the nuclear waste sealed ever will.

Oh and Los Angeles, your ground water has radiation in it. Alot might I add. Oh and alcohol has 400 beta particles per second according to FDA regulations.

The ignorance of people prohibits nuclear power from taking off. It ticks me off.

 

[Tortferngatr]

Agreed. Everyone keeps on bitching about storing nuclear waste in mountains, when in fact, Colorado's mountains emit more radiation than the nuclear waste sealed ever will.

Oh and Los Angeles, your ground water has radiation in it. Alot might I add. Oh and alcohol has 400 beta particles per second according to FDA regulations.

The ignorance of people prohibits nuclear power from taking off. It ticks me off.

Indeed. Nuclear power is viable, whether you think the world will end in fire in 50 years, ice in 50 years, that it'll stay dead flat, or (more likely) somewhere in the middle of those 3 extremes. The only drawback is under-the-table shipments to nuke factories (though hopefully more competent world leaders will send more inspectors if it gets popular worldwide.) And with more and more people having the bomb anyway...

 

[Brain]

The above statement runs on the assumption CO2 produces major climate effects. CO2 tends to come after hotter temperatures, not the other way around. Sunspots...I don't know exactly, only that they somehow affect our climate.

Read what I said earlier. CO2 is in an equilibrium with other factors such as temperature. If it gets hotter for some reason, CO2 will rise slowly as a feedback effect and will amplify the heating until some equilibrium is reached. But that is irrelevant to the debate. It makes no sense to say that CO2 is coming after temperature here because there is solid evidence that we are the ones putting it there - that the CO2 increase is induced by our activities and not by other factors. Right now, CO2 is not increasing because of a natural feedback to an external source of climate change. It is increasing because we burn fossil fuels. This situation is unprecedented in the planet's history, so even though CO2 was historically an amplifier, right now it's the primary driver.

Sunspots do affect climate, but not enough to explain recent changes.

 

[Deck Knight]

How much of your research depends on funding from pro-global warming outfits? After all, these days you can impugn oil companies for "windfall profits" and high energy costs, so I just want to know how much the entity that funds you relies on your research finding information that supports global warming. After all, we can't trust "big oil" because they have a vested interest. "Big government" and "Big environmentalism" should get the same cynical treatment. They are, after all, operating on public funding. i.e. unlike ExxonMobil, whose gas stations I do not patronize, they are using my forcibly taken money to advance their agenda. I distrust people whose livelihood depends on selling a political end-product, and the political-environmental complex is sufficiently inbred to render it suspect in all circumstances.

Is it true we only have 50 days to fix it or else Gordon Brown will do something crazy like give up on higher taxes, idiotic carbon trading schemes, and destroying Britain's economic prosperity?

I'm more focused on policy here. The planet's climate is going to change, so I'd rather not enact draconian laws based on it. Especially ones where they cannot actually specify environmental impact with something other than "it'll help." Every little incursion into personal liberty tends to "help" global warming for some reason.

James Hansen has been spouting alarmism since 1988. His most recent presentation asserts we are at the breaking point.

I was sadly unable to find a 1998 ten-year anniversary report. It would have been fun to see if he had claimed the exact same thing then as now. Maybe I'll have to wait another 20 years. Hansen will only be 88 by that point, he should be alive and kicking to tell us that where we were really screwed 20 years ago, we are totally and completely screwed at that future point in time. Gore had mercifully given his claim of utmost global doom 10 years, and we're only 5 years away from seeing it.

One needs not be a climatologist to know the planet is for more resilient than we take it for, and there will, in the future, be another Ice Age. Nor is the planet warming inherently bad. The Medieval Warm Period was one of the most prosperous periods in human history. As it current stands, global warming is a gold mine because it is a) unfalsifiable and b) has unlimited political capital for fearmongering until all of Hansen and company's doomsday predictions fall flat. In 30 years, when New York City still has not fallen into the sea, we will wonder: "So... why did we listen to the global warming guys 30 years ago when 60 years ago they were scaring us about the next ice age?"

Hansen himself has argued that there is a conflict between the concerns about global warming as scientists and as "human beings." That is not a man I trust to be honest with me. Good scientists who engage in good science are, by doing their jobs well, being good human beings. If Mr. Hansen believes the hard truth does not strike enough of a chord with people, I don't trust his research on principle. He inherently leans towards embellishment.

 

[cantab]

PALEOCENE-EOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM.

We KNOW the global temperature shot up very rapidly.

We KNOW a load of CO2 got shoved into the atmosphere.

We KNOW a lot of stuff went extinct.

The time resolution is pretty good. It appears an initial spike of CO2 caused a temperature rise, which then triggered a further release of CO2, in a positive feedback. Over much longer time periods, increased silicate weathering rates in hotter conditions then removed the CO2, in a longer-term negative feedback.

Now, we know that human activity is shoving a load of CO2 into the atmosphere. The PETM tells us what the consequences could be. It's real data to go with the computer models.

There is no question that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The question is a matter of degree.

In 30 years, when New York City still has not fallen into the sea, we will wonder So... why did we listen to the global warming guys 30 years ago when 60 years ago they were scaring us about the next ice age?"

In 30 years time, when NYC is still dry, will we even stop to think that maybe it's dry BECAUSE action was taken. Not as much as the doommongers wanted, but still some action.

A historical analogy springs to mind here. The Millennium Bug. Many predictions of doom were spread around, but in the end little trouble happened. Proof the doomsayers were wrong? No, the reason there was no problem was BECAUSE action was taken to make sure there would be no problem.

 

[Deck Knight]

PALEOCENE-EOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM.

We KNOW the global temperature shot up very rapidly.

We KNOW a load of CO2 got shoved into the atmosphere.

We KNOW a lot of stuff went extinct.

Funnily enough, A lot of stuff went extinct and a load of CO2 got shoved into the atmosphere during an Ice Age as well. Temperatures went down though. Which would seem to indicate CO2 is a bit player in temperature.

There is no question that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The question is a matter of degree.

There is no question the climate is going to change. There is also no question that a tyrannical, unaccountable world government is a feeble instrument to do anything about real or imagined anthropogenic climate change, but tyrannical, unaccountable world government is often billed as the only solution.

To wit:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on
adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund
including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to
address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,
rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation
window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for
adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology
action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on
adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting
and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and
verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of
technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The
secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for
information exchange.

If you missed it: They will establish a world government which no one elects and which is accountable to no one. This government will then proceed to redistribute wealth they have not earned and do not understand to address an issue they do not understand to an effect they understand perfectly: government control over as many people as possible.

In 30 years time, when NYC is still dry, will we even stop to think that maybe it's dry BECAUSE action was taken. Not as much as the doommongers wanted, but still some action.

A historical analogy springs to mind here. The Millennium Bug. Many predictions of doom were spread around, but in the end little trouble happened. Proof the doomsayers were wrong? No, the reason there was no problem was BECAUSE action was taken to make sure there would be no problem.

So basically we will have an effect that by default we cannot duplicate because we cannot actually know the inputs, nor test the results of alternate scenarios on a sufficiently large scale.

Does any science ever come into this?

Global Warming is unfalsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable bears no resemblance to science.

If disaster strikes: "Science says we didn't do enough! Curse you heretical deniers, curse you!"

If nothing happens: "Science has averted catastrophe! We are all heroes for alerting the public and evading this problem!"

Notably, the "consensus" (another term not generally associated with actual science) is not absolute.

EDIT: Oh hell, Lord Monckton absolutely demolishes all the lies by Gore and the IPCC. The best hour and a half you could possibly spend on this.

 

[Force Majeure]

Deck, you were a lot more entertaining and thought-provoking before you filled your posts with unmitigated bullshit from such wonderful purveyors as Laura Ingraham.

Remember "some things are just wrong"? Consider this a corollary. Some things are just right.

 

[Luduan]

Global Warming is unfalsifiable. Anything that is unfalsifiable bears no resemblance to science.

I am really tired of Popper's falsificationalist hegemony, mainly because he ignores how science actually works, historically and sociologically. I favor Kuhn and Feyerabend, so perhaps I am in the minority here.

Regardless, global warming is falsifiable. I will pose two questions to you in turn regarding falsification: How would one falsify your theory that climate change is natural and anthropogenic climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy? And why do you continue to repeat arguments that have already been falsified -- again and again?

Notably, the "consensus" (another term not generally associated with actual science) is not absolute.

Except that the term is often used in public debates over science: for instance, one commonly hears "the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory" in creation-evolution debates. (Incidentally, evolution is often criticized for being unfalsifiable -- even by Popper himself for a long time, though he later renounced his earlier views.)

The definition of consensus is: 1. majority of opinion. A consensus need not be absolute. There is a scientific consensus on climate change.

EDIT: Oh hell, Lord Monckton absolutely demolishes all the lies by Gore and the IPCC. The best hour and a half you could possibly spend on this.

Yes, look no further than a lecture by a former Thatcher economic adviser with absolutely no scientific credentials in any, let alone a relevant, field to "absolutely demolish" the peer-reviewed literature of trained climatologists. I find it humorous that you complain about bias in scientific sources. I guess that doesn't matter when dealing with right-wing pundits?

 

[SSBM roy]

Yes, look no further than a lecture by a former Thatcher economic adviser with absolutely no scientific credentials in any, let alone a relevant, field to "absolutely demolish" the peer-reviewed literature of trained climatologists. I find it humorous that you complain about bias in scientific sources. I guess that doesn't matter when dealing with right-wing pundits?

In Deck Knight's defense, his personal standards of what constitutes expertise are hardly lower than those of his friend James Inhofe.

 

[Deck Knight]

I am really tired of Popper's falsificationalist hegemony, mainly because he ignores how science actually works, historically and sociologically. I favor Kuhn and Feyerabend, so perhaps I am in the minority here.

Regardless, global warming is falsifiable. I will pose two questions to you in turn regarding falsification: How would one falsify your theory that climate change is natural and anthropogenic climate change is a vast left-wing conspiracy? And why do you continue to repeat arguments that have already been falsified -- again and again?

The same as you prove any conspiracy Luduan: Follow the money. I reckon the internationalist left stands to make a killing off that treaty they're going to get everyone to sign in Copenhagen to address a problem that doesn't exist. I wonder how much high-tech equipment is going to be used to build that fancy new international climate office? I wonder how much oil is going to be used for all those cranes, bulldozers, and inevitable photo-ops at the new center caused by politicians flying in private jets.

Quite frankly any building created in the name of "saving the planet" by addressing global warming is its own monument to hypocrisy, based on Anthropogenic Climate Change's own standards.

As to proving that climate change is natural? The planet is 4.6 billion years old. Humans have been on it for a scant few millions. It is nothing short of arrogant to believe we can shift the cycles of an entire planetary system just because we've invented the internal combustion engine. An invention that led to so many innovations that it brought over half the world out of poverty, starvation, and destitution; and it'd bring the rest out too, if eco-Luddites weren't so bent on destroying all traces of it.

Except that the term is often used in public debates over science: for instance, one commonly hears "the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory" in creation-evolution debates. (Incidentally, evolution is often criticized for being unfalsifiable -- even by Popper himself for a long time, though he later renounced his earlier views.)

The definition of consensus is: 1. majority of opinion. A consensus need not be absolute. There is a scientific consensus on climate change.

A consensus of "it is happening at rates between 3-5 degrees per century" is not internally consistent in and of itself. They cannot even peg down the degree to which it is happening, and as more data is actually observed rather than run through computer models attempting to explain a chaotic system (e.g. GIGO). Furthermore the word "consensus" is used to bludgeon debate. The "deniers" label is applied to people who don't believe the very narrow and increasingly absurd proposition that humanity is a global force whose might is merely intruded upon by natural "flukes."

Indeed, AGW supporters obfuscate the differentiation between believing earth's climate is changing (logical and sensical) and that man is causing it, so as to deny their specific theory is to deny the planet is a dynamic system. There can be no other rational explanation for calling opponents "anti-science."

Yes, look no further than a lecture by a former Thatcher economic adviser with absolutely no scientific credentials in any, let alone a relevant, field to "absolutely demolish" the peer-reviewed literature of trained climatologists. I find it humorous that you complain about bias in scientific sources. I guess that doesn't matter when dealing with right-wing pundits?

Logical Fallacies:

Guilt by Association: attachments to Thatcher are somehow relevant to his ability to use others' research in making his point.

Argumentum Ad Authoritatum: Because some particular group in authority supports my preferred view, that view is correct. I however, would not peg my credibility on 50 government-approved scientists. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the IPCC has been caught in lies and scandal ever since its inception. The IPCC quite frankly does not care what its "peers," say, as those peers are routinely silenced, their words distorted, and ultimately the IPCC's report is not for the consumption of the scientific community, but for politicians looking to fearmonger the public into granting government ever-greater largesse.

You also ignore the fact that he does indeed cite observed research in the lecture, which you obviously did not watch. I grow weary of your inability to do anything but throw around logical fallacies all day. Do you actually have a point? SSBM Roy below you is in no position to talk about sources, he believes Media Matters is peer-reviewed research.

You can predict global doom until the cows come home Luduan. I want observations. The only thing I'm observing is that the Tennessee Titans threw a football game on October 19th, 2009 to the New England Patriots while it was snowing in Foxboro, Massachusetts. I'm also observing that the cataclysmic predictions of Gore and co. cannot possibly be on course, because I have observed them grow ever more improbable. Each year the sea does not have a cataclysmic elevation is another order of magnitude that must be overcome for their doomsday scenario to come true on time.

I have also observed that the Medieval Warm Period was both a) hotter than today and b) before the Industrial Revolution. I have furthermore observed that unlike Gore's prediction, 2009 was a pathetically weak hurricane season, because hurricane activity is at a 50-year low-point. My last point regarding the Medieval Warm Period is that it is mysteriously unaccounted for in IPCC data. You'd think a relatively recent period of warmth would interest real scientists, but then, government agents in white coats have forfeited any credentials that might have accidentally aligned behind their name.

I'm not here to play Nostradamus with Luddites. No one takes global warming seriously anymore. Find some other gullible stooges to buy the propaganda. If you want me to cite the sources I have given, please watch Lord Monckton's lecture, as they have graciously provided all the slides he used. (My personal favorites are 24 and 49, 52-54 series, 59-60, 62, 65-68, 71, 73, and 79 [be sure to read the little speech bubble in the upper-left.])

The unabashed, fully nude, completely exposed observations are settled. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a ponzi scheme designed to give the UN, the IPCC, and erego the internationalist left ever more control over each individual's life. It is held up only by the lies of a single international panel in a notoriously corrupt organization. It is not ignorance that drives global warming zealotry, it is malice. A deliberate malice towards human progress and the eradication of poverty and disease through its only true method of alleviation: economic prosperity.

Global warming can be anything: It can be hotter, it can be colder, it can be drier, it can be wetter (~Stephen Guilbeault, Greenpeace). The only thing that needs to remain consistent is the annual increase in appropriations to study and "fight" Anthropogenic Climate Change.

EDIT: LOL, They also want you to eat puppies to curb your carbon emissions. Despite even AGW supporters flaking on CO2's impact. I could produce a stupid story like this one every single day just for this thread, and you'd still expect me to take AGW seriously, wouldn't you?

 

[Altmer]

The same as you prove any conspiracy Luduan: Follow the money. I reckon the internationalist left stands to make a killing off that treaty they're going to get everyone to sign in Copenhagen to address a problem that doesn't exist. I wonder how much high-tech equipment is going to be used to build that fancy new international climate office? I wonder how much oil is going to be used for all those cranes, bulldozers, and inevitable photo-ops at the new center caused by politicians flying in private jets.

nobody is saying politicians aren't hypocrites but the fact they are hypocrites doesn't mean they're wrong, that is a fallacious argument

Quite frankly any building created in the name of "saving the planet" by addressing global warming is its own monument to hypocrisy, based on Anthropogenic Climate Change's own standards.

better hypocritical and changing than non hypocritical on a shitty planet

As to proving that climate change is natural? The planet is 4.6 billion years old. Humans have been on it for a scant few millions. It is nothing short of arrogant to believe we can shift the cycles of an entire planetary system just because we've invented the internal combustion engine. An invention that led to so many innovations that it brought over half the world out of poverty, starvation, and destitution; and it'd bring the rest out too, if eco-Luddites weren't so bent on destroying all traces of it.

deck knight ELEMENTAL SCIENCE PROVES THIS

do you even know what science is. damn i could give you easy calculations on the general power use of a steam engine or an internal combustion engine and on how inefficient it is and how much power it uses. if you really wanna talk the science, let's do it, but no. this is just wrong. yes we have been here but we can QUANTIFY our own excesses. i'm sorry but no lol

A consensus of "it is happening at rates between 3-5 degrees per century" is not internally consistent in and of itself. They cannot even peg down the degree to which it is happening, and as more data is actually observed rather than run through computer models attempting to explain a chaotic system (e.g. GIGO). Furthermore the word "consensus" is used to bludgeon debate. The "deniers" label is applied to people who don't believe the very narrow and increasingly absurd proposition that humanity is a global force whose might is merely intruded upon by natural "flukes."

3-5 is statistics buddy, ofc we can't actually peg down everything to more than a decimal but that is because the atmosphere is a complex system with too many variables. and yes we have observed temperature rise, don't dismiss it because it's coming from the left-wing conspiracy or whatever

Indeed, AGW supporters obfuscate the differentiation between believing earth's climate is changing (logical and sensical) and that man is causing it, so as to deny their specific theory is to deny the planet is a dynamic system. There can be no other rational explanation for calling opponents "anti-science."

it is a dynamic system but our CO2 levels are fucking waaaay above the dynamic system levels and the ability of change 100 year periods induce. stop fooling yourself.



Logical Fallacies:

Guilt by Association: attachments to Thatcher are somehow relevant to his ability to use others' research in making his point.

Argumentum Ad Authoritatum: Because some particular group in authority supports my preferred view, that view is correct. I however, would not peg my credibility on 50 government-approved scientists. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the IPCC has been caught in lies and scandal ever since its inception. The IPCC quite frankly does not care what its "peers," say, as those peers are routinely silenced, their words distorted, and ultimately the IPCC's report is not for the consumption of the scientific community, but for politicians looking to fearmonger the public into granting government ever-greater largesse.

ok now you're just being dumb. IPCC is an independent authority with world-renowned scientists over calling the shots. do you really think the IPCC cares about giving the governments a license to interfere? that isn't even close to its point. we want to warn the public about actual dangers and take MEASURES.

You also ignore the fact that he does indeed cite observed research in the lecture, which you obviously did not watch. I grow weary of your inability to do anything but throw around logical fallacies all day. Do you actually have a point? SSBM Roy below you is in no position to talk about sources, he believes Media Matters is peer-reviewed research.

ad hominem

You can predict global doom until the cows come home Luduan. I want observations. The only thing I'm observing is that the Tennessee Titans threw a football game on October 19th, 2009 to the New England Patriots while it was snowing in Foxboro, Massachusetts. I'm also observing that the cataclysmic predictions of Gore and co. cannot possibly be on course, because I have observed them grow ever more improbable. Each year the sea does not have a cataclysmic elevation is another order of magnitude that must be overcome for their doomsday scenario to come true on time.

nobody is predicting global doom. they didn't predict sea elevation to happen overnight. it'll happen in a hundred years. just because we're not being swamped by tornados daily doesn't mean it's not a problem

I have also observed that the Medieval Warm Period was both a) hotter than today and b) before the Industrial Revolution. I have furthermore observed that unlike Gore's prediction, 2009 was a pathetically weak hurricane season, because hurricane activity is at a 50-year low-point. My last point regarding the Medieval Warm Period is that it is mysteriously unaccounted for in IPCC data. You'd think a relatively recent period of warmth would interest real scientists, but then, government agents in white coats have forfeited any credentials that might have accidentally aligned behind their name.

ok so because we have one off year it's not global warming

what

 

[Luduan]

You show a marked tendency to elude the points that others make in response to your arguments, simply abandoning them and moving on to others equally feeble, only to reach down during some future harangue into the deepest recesses of the discredited to upgather the old in a new iteration of specious rhetoric. I am going to assume by your silence that you have tacitly accepted the falsifications of your earlier arguments by various people in this thread, including myself, cookie and Brain, though I know this is unlikely. Please do not continue to repeat the same arguments without addressing previous objections to them. An example of this is the statement that "[t]he only thing I'm observing is that the Tennessee Titans threw a football game on October 19th, 2009 to the New England Patriots while it was snowing in Foxboro, Massachusetts". It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that weather is not climate and that this is therefore inconsequential. You may think this a good way to score cheap debate points, but I am going to simply ignore such flourishes in the future until you provide some defense or substantiation against the criticisms of your interlocutors.

The same as you prove any conspiracy Luduan: Follow the money. I reckon the internationalist left stands to make a killing off that treaty they're going to get everyone to sign in Copenhagen to address a problem that doesn't exist. I wonder how much high-tech equipment is going to be used to build that fancy new international climate office? I wonder how much oil is going to be used for all those cranes, bulldozers, and inevitable photo-ops at the new center caused by politicians flying in private jets.

Quite frankly any building created in the name of "saving the planet" by addressing global warming is its own monument to hypocrisy, based on Anthropogenic Climate Change's own standards.

As to proving that climate change is natural? The planet is 4.6 billion years old. Humans have been on it for a scant few millions. It is nothing short of arrogant to believe we can shift the cycles of an entire planetary system just because we've invented the internal combustion engine. An invention that led to so many innovations that it brought over half the world out of poverty, starvation, and destitution; and it'd bring the rest out too, if eco-Luddites weren't so bent on destroying all traces of it.

1. I didn't ask for proof; I asked for a method of falsification. Apparently reading is not your strong suit. You have provided no evidence that global warming is a conspiracy. Hint: I don't give a fuck about governments, what I care about is scientists (and if governments so obviously benefited, you'd think they would be more eager than they have been in the past to sign significant agreements). Why is it that scientists accept anthropogenic climate change? That is the only relevant matter here. You have provided absolutely zero evidence, argument, or motive for a vast, international scientific conspiracy of this magnitude.

2. The age of the earth is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the emission of CO2 by humans can cause enough change in temperature (i.e. very little) to drastically affect human life and ecosystems. What has happened in the past simply has no bearing on what is happening in the present. During no other period in history has such amounts of CO2 been released by human beings into the atmosphere. It is also irrelevant how many people certain innovations "brought out of poverty, starvation and destitution". This isn't an argument; it is a straw man. Few people are advocating the crass "eco-Luddite" primitivism you seem so terrified of. Pentti Linkola is not the face of international climate science and activitism. In fact, it is exactly in technological innovation and progress that our hopes lie. How is developing forms of alternative energy and cultivating more sustainable, responsible lifestyles Luddism? It is rather quite the opposite. And regardless of whether or not climate change is occuring or will affect us, fossil fuels are non-renewable and hence unsustainable. Peak oil and oil depletion are reason enough to expend significant effort pursuing these technologies. (Though I quite agree with Monckton that biofuels are a bad idea. They do more harm that good to the environment.)

A consensus of "it is happening at rates between 3-5 degrees per century" is not internally consistent in and of itself. They cannot even peg down the degree to which it is happening, and as more data is actually observed rather than run through computer models attempting to explain a chaotic system (e.g. GIGO). Furthermore the word "consensus" is used to bludgeon debate. The "deniers" label is applied to people who don't believe the very narrow and increasingly absurd proposition that humanity is a global force whose might is merely intruded upon by natural "flukes."

How is that not internally consistent...? You are also backpedaling from claiming there is no consensus to claiming that consensus does not matter. The consensus is best summed up by the IPCC who say, variously:

Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.​

This has been echoed by dozens of scientific groups, whose statements are provided on the wiki page I linked to. A survey by Naomi Oreskes in Science considered the abstracts of 928 peer-reviewed papers. Of these, "75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." It is pretty significant, statistically speaking, that not a single one of 928 peer-reviewed papers dealing with climate change reject the consensus (again, as outlined above; Oreskes herself quotes the IPCC as an expression of the consensus). Furthermore, not a single international scientific body of standing has dissented from this consensus. That's one fucking big conspiracy, if you don't mind my saying. It may even top Kent Hovind's evolution conspiracy for "biggest left-wing scientific hoax ever perpetrated".

So now that we have established that a consensus does exist, what does it mean for us? Not a single person in this discussion (that I know of) is a trained climatologist. I certainly do not have the requisite training, scientific expertise, or familiarity with the technical literature to believe my opinion is meaningful, and neither do you. So whom should I trust? The overwhelming majority of those individuals who are trained in relevant fields and who provide cogent, well-argued, and often apolitical (despite what you seem to believe) arguments for their findings? Or should I trust oil companies who clearly benefit (some of whom also have publically accepted the consensus) and those without an iota of scientific training whatsoever, like Lord Monckton, who provide flawed arguments, misinformation and manipulation of data to reach foregone conclusions (to which we return in a moment)? Is your faith in partisans rather than scientists so great that you are willing to incur the possible risks of inaction? Mine aren't. I could give a damn about Al Gore and environmentalist activists, quite frankly. I care solely about what the scientists say, as they are the ones best qualified to offer educated and informed opinions on the matter. Certainly, they may be wrong, but I think it is far more likely they are right. I find nothing convincing about the scant arguments and shallow analyses you have unthinkingly copied from sites with explicit political agendas (once again, see below). That you refuse to respond to specific criticisms of your arguments or to cite scientific sources does not help.

Indeed, AGW supporters obfuscate the differentiation between believing earth's climate is changing (logical and sensical) and that man is causing it, so as to deny their specific theory is to deny the planet is a dynamic system. There can be no other rational explanation for calling opponents "anti-science."

That isn't an obfuscation. It's an inference of causality. No one denies the planet is a dynamic system, but it isn't nearly as dynamic as you seem to believe it is. It is still privy to cause and effect. Actions have consequences. If a volcano erupts and spews SO2 in the air, the earth cools. Seasons are regular. Glacial cycles are regular and result from orbital variations. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it makes sense to think the earth will get warmer. Yes, climate is always changing. It does not logically follow that present changes are not the result of human activities.

Guilt by Association: attachments to Thatcher are somehow relevant to his ability to use others' research in making his point.

Argumentum Ad Authoritatum: Because some particular group in authority supports my preferred view, that view is correct. I however, would not peg my credibility on 50 government-approved scientists. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and the IPCC has been caught in lies and scandal ever since its inception. The IPCC quite frankly does not care what its "peers," say, as those peers are routinely silenced, their words distorted, and ultimately the IPCC's report is not for the consumption of the scientific community, but for politicians looking to fearmonger the public into granting government ever-greater largesse.

That's funny, since the several dozen articles I have read on climatology while debating you in several threads over the last year or so mostly cite and support the IPCC's statements. You are quite right that this is an argument from authority. What's your point? That Lord Monckton has no technical training in any scientific field leads me to severely doubt that he has the ability to interpret the relevant literature properly. This is simple source-evaluation. That he is a former Thatcher adviser shows where his political sympathies lie. I don't see how this is much different than claiming there is an "internationlist leftist" conspiracy. The difference is that one individual's being politically motivated is much more likely than entire disciplines of international science.

You also ignore the fact that he does indeed cite observed research in the lecture, which you obviously did not watch. I grow weary of your inability to do anything but throw around logical fallacies all day. Do you actually have a point? SSBM Roy below you is in no position to talk about sources, he believes Media Matters is peer-reviewed research.

1. You are quite right that I did not watch the hour and a half long video. I apologize for not taking a large chunk of time to listen to a non-scientist talk about science. I did, however, download his slides and am thoroughly unimpressed (see below).

2. I am not SSBM_Roy, but when has he ever claimed that "Media Matters is peer-reviewed research"? You bring up Media Matters in response to every post he makes on any subject even when it is thoroughly irrelevant. I don't see him citing Media Matters in this thread, do you? (You also haven't actually provided any arguments against the specific citations of Media Matters he has made in other threads, but that's neither here nor there.)

You can predict global doom until the cows come home Luduan. I want observations.

1. I haven’t predicted a single thing.

2. The ability to make predictions is a vital element of any scientific theory

3. How about the observation that temperature has increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C during the past century (see here and here)? How about the observation that human beings have contributed a significant amount of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere? How about hindcasting? How about Hansen's predictions in 1988, which were largely proven correct (pace Monckton's slides)? How about these observations (courtesy of Cory Beck):

1. the warming at the surface should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere and this has indeed been observed
2. as well as surface temperatures warming, models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid and upper troposphere even while satellite readings seemed to disagree. But it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed
3. models expect warming of ocean surface waters as is now observed
4. models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected
5. models predict sharp and short lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this.
6. models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region and this is happening

How about these observations:

1. Satellite Data
2. Radiosondes
3. Borehole analysis
4. Glacial melt observations
5. Sea ice melt
6. Sea level rise
7. Proxy Reconstructions
8. Permafrost melt

Would you like more?

I'm also observing that the cataclysmic predictions of Gore and co. cannot possibly be on course, because I have observed them grow ever more improbable. Each year the sea does not have a cataclysmic elevation is another order of magnitude that must be overcome for their doomsday scenario to come true on time.

This is a strawman.

I have also observed that the Medieval Warm Period was both a) hotter than today and b) before the Industrial Revolution. I have furthermore observed that unlike Gore's prediction, 2009 was a pathetically weak hurricane season, because hurricane activity is at a 50-year low-point. My last point regarding the Medieval Warm Period is that it is mysteriously unaccounted for in IPCC data. You'd think a relatively recent period of warmth would interest real scientists, but then, government agents in white coats have forfeited any credentials that might have accidentally aligned behind their name.

1. There is no hard evidence that the temperature of the so-called “medieval warm period” is comparable to that of today on a global or hemispheric level. It was a period of regional variance and was not as warm as today (see here).

2. Even if it was, it is thoroughly irrelevant. “It was warm in the past” does not imply that current trends of increasing temperatures are not attributable to human activity.

3. Gore took a fair bit of criticism from the scientific community for his use of Hurricane Katrina imagery in An Inconvenient Truth. Once again, you are attacking a straw-man. To quote wiki:

Although many aspects of a link between tropical cyclones and global warming are still being "hotly debated",[146] a point of agreement is that no individual tropical cyclone or season can be attributed to global warming.[142][146] Research reported in the 3 September 2008 issue of Nature found that the strongest tropical cyclones are getting stronger, particularly over the North Atlantic and Indian oceans. Wind speeds for the strongest tropical storms increased from an average of 140 miles per hour (230 km/h) in 1981 to 156 miles per hour (251 km/h) in 2006, while the ocean temperature, averaged globally over the all regions where tropical cyclones form, increased from 28.2 °C (82.8 °F) to 28.5 °C (83.3 °F) during this period.[147][148]
​

4. One year is not a trend.

I'm not here to play Nostradamus with Luddites. No one takes global warming seriously anymore. Find some other gullible stooges to buy the propaganda. If you want me to cite the sources I have given, please watch Lord Monckton's lecture, as they have graciously provided all the slides he used. (My personal favorites are 24 and 49, 52-54 series, 59-60, 62, 65-68, 71, 73, and 79 [be sure to read the little speech bubble in the upper-left.])

I'm not a Luddite, and I guess the scientific community is “no one”.

The unabashed, fully nude, completely exposed observations are settled. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a ponzi scheme designed to give the UN, the IPCC, and erego the internationalist left ever more control over each individual's life. It is held up only by the lies of a single international panel in a notoriously corrupt organization. It is not ignorance that drives global warming zealotry, it is malice. A deliberate malice towards human progress and the eradication of poverty and disease through its only true method of alleviation: economic prosperity.

“Lies” that have been corroborated by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers and dozens of international scientific bodies of standing.

Now, I don’t feel like watching an hour and a half long video, and I doubt you really expected me to read all 174 of those slides. You are quite right; I’m certainly not going to. I will counter a few of the arguments, though, just for the sake of it (and if you'd like me to respond to others, please raise them individually). Before I begin, let me say that I find it ironic that you accuse me of ad hominems when Monckton’s slides contain numerous unnecessary personal jibes and mocking of his opponents. So let’s examine the viscount’s magical debunking.

• The first 26 pages have absolutely nothing to do with the science behind anthropogenic climate change whatsoever, and so I’ll ignore them. (Seriously, DDT and malaria? HIV? This is an argument how?)

• Slides 27-30 are about sea-level. Gore claims in his movie that sea-level will rise 6 metres (slide 28 says 610 cm, and I’ll trust that Monckton is correct). However, he doesn’t give a timeframe for this (you can check yourself), which makes it utterly ridiculous that Monckton says he was off from the IPCC by a factor of 100. Nowhere did he say “sea levels will rise by six metres by 2100” in his film. Approximately six metres is about how much higher sea levels were 125,000 years ago. At this time, global temperatures were around 1-2 degrees warmer than they are today. So he didn’t pull the number out of his ass either. This is not far different from an article written in 2006, the full abstract of which reads:

Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.[Source]
​

Regardless, it is notoriously difficult to predict possible sea-level increases. See here and here for relevant discussions.
​

• Slides 31-34 are about polar bears (I’m not sure what this has to do with the science of anthropogenic climate change, but I’ll bite). The “lie”, according to Monckton, is that many polar bears are drowning, etc. In reality, he says, only four have been found dead. This is true, but obscures part of the issue; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bears#Global_warming

• Slides 35-38 are about Kilimanjaro. Read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/ and the comments.

Honestly, I could go on, and on -- his distortions are so manifold -- but frankly, I have neither the time, the patience, the desire, nor the relevant knowledge to do so. This post is far too long as it is.

 

[Glen]

thank you so much

 

[cantab]

It is also irrelevant how many people certain innovations "brought out of poverty, starvation and destitution". This isn't an argument; it is a straw man. Few people are advocating the crass "eco-Luddite" primitivism you seem so terrified of. Pentti Linkola is not the face of international climate science and activitism. In fact, it is exactly in technological innovation and progress that our hopes lie. How is developing forms of alternative energy and cultivating more sustainable, responsible lifestyles Luddism? It is rather quite the opposite. And regardless of whether or not climate change is occuring or will affect us, fossil fuels are non-renewable and hence unsustainable. Peak oil and oil depletion are reason enough to expend significant effort pursuing these technologies.

Indeed. Renewable energy is going to be BIG business. The oil companies have become some of the biggest investors. They know their current business is at risk of going away, due to both diminishing reserves and possible emissions reduction, so they're getting involved in the new stuff.

Not a single person in this discussion (that I know of) is a trained climatologist.

For what it's worth, I possibly come closest. I've studied long-term, natural climate change. Not so much on quaternary and anthropogenic stuff, but I know enough about the natural means to know that they DON'T explain the data from human records.

models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected

I hadn't heard of that, but it's a seriously nice piece of work. Of course it needs to be (and is) corroborated by ground-based measurements.

 

[Brain]

Deck Knight:

* Your conspiracy theory would involve dozens of governments working together with environmental activists, colluding with a hundred scientific organizations to make them issue statements about global warming, not to mention almost every single climate scientist, on a time scale of twenty years, leaving quite scarce evidence of compromising memos and virtually no whistleblowers, all that for a purpose so dubious that all you can manage to say about it is that they wish to build an international climate office. I mean I can't even find the words to describe how dumb this is.

* It is perfectly fine to talk about a scientific consensus that AGW is happening, because it is pretty much true. While in itself that is not an argument, the point is to give you enough perspective to stop acting like an arrogant prick on a subject that you are not qualified to talk about.

* Nobody gives a shit about Al Gore. Nobody who is serious about this topic cares about what Al Gore says. This is science and the authority is scientists. You are the one quoting people with no scientific background (no wonder, though - that's all you have).

* Stop confusing weather with climate. Weather is local and short term. Climate is global and long term. Nobody gives a shit about anecdotal evidence that it is snowing somewhere in October, it is not like global warming has ever meant that every place on Earth has to get hotter all the time. It is also imbecilistic to think that 2 or 4 year trends are in any way relevant to, well, anything.

* Somewhat off-topic, the language of that presentation is utmostly disrespectful. By using the word "lie" almost everywhere, he is downplaying his presentation's actual content (which, admittedly, is zero) for an atmosphere of conspiracy, emphasizing that scientists are not only wrong, they are lying and riling up a sympathetic audience to his cause. The vast majority of these slides are cherry picking, misinterpretation, putting emphasis on the wrong curves, carefully selecting slices of a graph that will give him the trend he wants but are too narrow to be useful, showing local trends that are completely irrelevant but appear to bolster his position, etc. It is a prime example of intellectual dishonesty. Can you even find one climate scientist who supports that guy? I can find one who demolishes him.

 

[Deck Knight]

I make no claims to understand all the science behind climatology, only that its presentation to the public has been skewed to reach apocalyptic outcomes, outcomes that need to be satirized and skewered as often as possible. Gore's lack of timescale on his 6m sea-rise prediction is deliberate: it plays off fears that cataclysmic damage is imminent. It deserves every ounce of mockery that can be mustered. "But what if New York ends up under sea!" Answer: Erosion. It's going to happen eventually anyway, whether global warming raises the ocean to facilitate it or no. The Titans/Patriots example is not serious, it is a mockery of the doom predictions that demand heatstroke death, inundation, and other cataclysm.

Whether the planet is warming or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't care about the science behind this, because while the science is measured the governmental response to it is decisively not. The science is merely a tool for the government, and will be exaggerated for public consumption. Even assuming Global Warming is proven, that places no value on whether it is good or bad (its only value is "different"). The earth has warmed and cooled before, and humanity is in a unique position of being able to adapt to it perfectly.

An appropriate sidenote: I'm no doubt aware you will mention the "damage" to ecosystems caused by such a change. Why is it darwinists only get miffed when man changes an ecosystem rather than locusts, a flash flood, a volcanic eruption, or an outbreak of disease? Like the climate, the ecosystem is ever-changing and will re-balance itself. The annual wildfires in California immolate vast tracts of the environment, yet still life thrives there. What if we are successful and accelerate the next global cooling cycle, destroying the economic viability of New York Harbor and Boston Harbor by having oceans that are too low? Will government be our solution then, too? Will we fire up all those power plants again? What if humanity actually did want to bend the earth's climate to our will? How would we do it?

As far as the argument regarding "change" itself being bad: People elected the most recent President of the United States on the basis he was the symbol of "change," and he has far more power on the immediate state of the world than climate change. Unspecified "change" is only bad when it is politically convenient for the alarmists. I imagine they unanimously voted Democrat in 2008, those in the United States anyway.

In Brief: It is not scientists, but politicians who decide how to combat global warming. The IPCC's research arm may be scientists, but the people who draft and implement policy are international bureaucrats with the same "credentials" as Al Gore.

2. The age of the earth is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the emission of CO2 by humans can cause enough change in temperature (i.e. very little) to drastically affect human life and ecosystems. What has happened in the past simply has no bearing on what is happening in the present. During no other period in history has such amounts of CO2 been released by human beings into the atmosphere.

What is the actual percentage of current human contribution to CO2? Well, since I know you'll go back to realclimate, your favorite site: all of it. Given that we will endlessly circle back to this source given any more discussion, for the purposes of getting on to the actual issue at hand, I will concede defeat. Nevermind humanity inducing the CO2 increase is irrelevant. Any factor providing sufficient CO2 would cause the same scenario, like a volcanic eruption for example.

There is zero purpose in arguing with someone whose sources believe man is the primary determinant of CO2, and that CO2 forcing leads primarily to temperature increases. Despite the inherent humanistic hubris involved in such a claim, that doesn't really address the key beef I have with climate change, which is the baffling and idiotic proposed solutions.

For example, how does expanding the IPCC and various other UN organizations into a globalized wealth redistribution mechanism curb actual emissions? All I see is a bloated bureaucracy engaging in arbitrary mandates. All of these mandates are economically destructive. How can you possibly innovate green technology if you levy absurd levels of taxation on individuals and businesses? How can you have the room to develop and innovate when the government decides that the primary source of the world's energy is to be taxed at a rate the poor cannot afford?

The reason for all those Africa and HIV slides in Lord Monckton's presentation is because Africa's primary problem is a lack of energy infrastructure, a prerequisite to all other forms of modernity. The idea the current human population is unsustainable is ridiculous. The United States produces enough food to feed the entire world (were we not wasting corn on biofuels); the problem comes down to distribution, not supply. Less people would go hungry if they had more technology available to them, and were not subject to the violent tyranny of anti-liberty governments. Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and then went from a net exporter of food to a net importer, all because a backwards, violent administration took over. Monckton's slides on DDT indicate the impact of stupid "green" solutions, where people die because the most effective solution to malaria isn't "eco-friendly" enough for environmental activists like Al Gore, noted non-scientist.

This new, thinly veiled UN redistribution scheme does nothing. The UN only redistributes money to corrupt governments to engage in further tyranny. The UN is responsible for the literal and figurative rape of The Congo. Any appendage of such an organization is tainted with its useless, incompetent, and dangerous forbear.

Point is, the scientists and the science aren't in charge here. The so-called "green jobs" do not exist. For all the inefficiency associated with fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine, it joins with nuclear as the only two power sources viable enough for large-scale energy use. Wind energy is a joke until they can find a way to tame winds in a wider range. Solar needs a serious boost in either storage or absorption ability to be a viable mechanism even as a backup supply. Electric power? From where? Oh. Those nasty coal-fired power plants again. Hydrogen fuel for automobiles needs both testing and an infrastructure, and that infrastructure will be difficult to provide without heavy use of the current fossil-fueled heavy machinery.

Now, all of these technologies have applications for low-demand items. A solar panel is more than sufficient to power a portable wave radio. Wind energy can be used to intermittently charge a battery supply for a locality. But these are not major boons for creating a new sector of "green" workers. A rather sickening description, if I do say so myself.

To illustrate, Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan was bragging about how by 2020, Michigan would have 40,000 new Green Jobs. 40,000 is eleven years? In an area wracked by 15% unemployment? If America were allowed to prosper instead of its current scheme of overbearing government (the only system the UN would implement, as overbearing world government is its calling card), we could create 40,000 jobs a day.

But alarmists want to curb carbon now rather than put it to productive uses in the interim. "Act now, question later" is the mantra of the UN and "green" politicians. They want to make it rich off silly carbon trading schemes that are essentially a form of indulgence. If the "status quo" is so catastrophic, then why a tool like carbon credits that exists solely to prolong the "status quo?" The obvious answer is money and power. Who do you suppose makes money off the "trade" part of cap and trade? Why, carbon traders like Al Gore, of course. And the more alarmism is out there, the more the value of an instrument like "carbon credits" goes up. If people think they are doomed in 10 years rather than 20, the "value" of carbon credit doubles, possibly increases tenfold. And of course, if we aren't doomed, well... they aren't worth the paper they are printed on, are they? Without demand to alleviate global doom, carbon credits have the same value as monopoly money.

The oil companies have vested interests? So do the climate alarmists. They stand to profit richly at everyone else's loss, with taxpayer subsidies to boot.

The science may be proven or unproven. Even assuming it is proven, the solutions being proposed are economically destructive and do not address the fundamental problem. How much actual effect will banning incandescent light bulbs and creating an economic windfall for CFL producers have? For the environment, I mean. How about 15 years down the road, when we have billions upon billions of mercury infused light bulbs to dispose of, and nowhere to put them? And of course, the inevitable epidemic of "kids playing ball in house wipes out CFL lamp," leading to a localized biological hazard. Lets not forget the disparate impact on the poor by forcing them to triple the cost of lighting their homes. Few consequences in the world are actually unintended.

The science is ultimately irrelevant to the political consequences, and if the science can't be attacked, then "its" policy prescriptions must be. Which would be a lot easier if the science were not tied at the hilt to internationalist political organizations who are simply using it as an unassailable truth to justify their loosely climate-related desires.

The "Do Something" mentality is the problem with Global Warming. Never is that "something" specified. It is wrapped in the propagandistic "save the planet" rhetoric, and that is the real fraud, the real hoax of global warming: The idea the planet can be "saved" if only humanity cuts back, if only we limit the human spirit and replace it with paternalistic international agencies. For all the years global warming has been in vogue internationally, it seems this new "green technology" is at the same barely-existent level it has always been at, making perhaps a tiny gain here and there. Yet the expanse of government to research and "fight" it has been astounding. Most of the real innovation has been outside the hallowed halls of redistributionists. The oil companies are not stupid, and do not have the advantages of unlimited public largesse and diplomatic immunity. They actually have to produce value, not just push paper.

A true skeptic has to wonder, what kind of bang for the buck are we getting here? All this government seems so... inefficient. Ironic. Maybe there is a truth to the science. I'll take my chances, though. The current backers of this travesty dressed as naive children's-story-level heroics are making me sacrifice immediate liberties to avert potential future disaster. This is not a tradeoff I am willing to make, especially not given the snail's pace of technology and the promised "green jobs" compared to the leviathan growth in government.

 

[Brain]

Whether the planet is warming or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't care about the science behind this, because while the science is measured the governmental response to it is decisively not. The science is merely a tool for the government, and will be exaggerated for public consumption. Even assuming Global Warming is proven, that places no value on whether it is good or bad (its only value is "different"). The earth has warmed and cooled before, and humanity is in a unique position of being able to adapt to it perfectly.

As it seems, the Earth has already known an ice age so bad that it practically became an iceball. A standard glacial period would pretty much require the evacuation of Canada and most of northern Europe, whereas an unusually warm period would require the evacuation of most coastal settlements. The point is, we've had a particularly stable climate for the past 10,000 years, this certainly made it easier for human civilization to flourish and we should make sure that the climate stays stable for as long as possible. If the climate was changing naturally in a way that could lead to a catastrophe, I'd be all for trying to stop it. To cause warmng beyond a certain point would be the height of irresponsibility and evidence seems to indicate that we are indeed going too far.

An appropriate sidenote: I'm no doubt aware you will mention the "damage" to ecosystems caused by such a change. Why is it darwinists only get miffed when man changes an ecosystem rather than locusts, a flash flood, a volcanic eruption, or an outbreak of disease?

Because why make it worse than it already is? That's like saying earthquakes are no big deal, after all, hurricanes happen. Our influence is harmful, extraneous and we can do something about it. Also: Darwinists? What does this have to do with darwinism?

What is the actual percentage of current human contribution to CO2? Well, since I know you'll go back to realclimate, your favorite site: all of it. Given that we will endlessly circle back to this source given any more discussion, for the purposes of getting on to the actual issue at hand, I will concede defeat.

Good thing you admit you have nothing to oppose.

Nevermind humanity inducing the CO2 increase is irrelevant. Any factor providing sufficient CO2 would cause the same scenario, like a volcanic eruption for example.

Volcanoes don't produce nearly as much CO2 as we do. They also rarely erupt. They also send a shitload of SO2 in the air, which has a short cooling effect. Basically, they are irrelevant. What we do (continual mass production of CO2) is something that just does not happen naturally and has an effect that very rarely happens naturally and would be catastrophic if it did.

Note that "catastrophic" does not mean "we will all die", it does not mean "the planet will be destroyed" or any of that nonsense. It's basically humanity getting punched in the face and I'm not sure why we would let our guard down as we see it coming, let alone willingly punch ourselves in the face.

Monckton's slides on DDT indicate the impact of stupid "green" solutions, where people die because the most effective solution to malaria isn't "eco-friendly" enough for environmental activists like Al Gore, noted non-scientist.

First, as far as I can tell, DDT was not banned for use for public health purposes (if at all - the US is not the world, and the ban in the US is inconsequential since there is no malaria there). It is still used, mainly indoors. One of the main problems with DDT which occurred in the 60s is that insects quickly develop resistance to it, rendering it essentially useless. The widespread usage of DDT as an agricultural insecticide exacerbated this problem and it stands to reason that in order for it to be effective against malaria, agricultural use ought to be banned - and most of the "environmental harm" such as egg shell thinning is also related to that use case. On the other hand, it seems to be the case that several environmental organizations might have irrationally opposed its use (though it's not readily apparent if they had good reasons or not - eg better alternatives). But overall I think your analysis is, well, a little too simplistic.

The oil companies have vested interests? So do the climate alarmists. They stand to profit richly at everyone else's loss, with taxpayer subsidies to boot.

Frankly, you have provided no evidence that they do. As far as I can tell, cap and trade is more or less a free market based solution. Some proposals of carbon tax are mitigated by tax cuts for individuals, others grant credits for using alternative energy sources, etc. so in a way they can be seen as revenue neutral. Besides political gain, frankly, I don't see where the profits are. I mean this is just from five minutes of browsing... I don't see anyone seriously proposing to just take money without balancing it out. I think you are really blowing everything out of proportion.

At least it seems that you figured out that there is pretty damn good evidence that the science is, indeed, sound, but that you don't really care if it is or not, so you don't have to fight on that front. There are two aspects to the debate: science and policy. The science is sound, you just need to finally get over it - realizing that you don't actually care if AGW is happening or not is a step in the right direction. The policy is something that's more debatable. But for the love of God separate the aspects when you argue. There's little more frustrating than seeing nonsensical science interweaved with liberal conspiracy talk.

 

[Altmer]

I make no claims to understand all the science behind climatology, only that its presentation to the public has been skewed to reach apocalyptic outcomes, outcomes that need to be satirized and skewered as often as possible. Gore's lack of timescale on his 6m sea-rise prediction is deliberate: it plays off fears that cataclysmic damage is imminent. It deserves every ounce of mockery that can be mustered. "But what if New York ends up under sea!" Answer: Erosion. It's going to happen eventually anyway, whether global warming raises the ocean to facilitate it or no. The Titans/Patriots example is not serious, it is a mockery of the doom predictions that demand heatstroke death, inundation, and other cataclysm.

translation: I don't get it therefore I am calling people retards and satirising it

Whether the planet is warming or not is irrelevant. Again, I don't care about the science behind this, because while the science is measured the governmental response to it is decisively not. The science is merely a tool for the government, and will be exaggerated for public consumption. Even assuming Global Warming is proven, that places no value on whether it is good or bad (its only value is "different"). The earth has warmed and cooled before, and humanity is in a unique position of being able to adapt to it perfectly.

and humanity is also in a unique position to understand to what degree they are causing global warming and stop it

An appropriate sidenote: I'm no doubt aware you will mention the "damage" to ecosystems caused by such a change. Why is it darwinists only get miffed when man changes an ecosystem rather than locusts, a flash flood, a volcanic eruption, or an outbreak of disease? Like the climate, the ecosystem is ever-changing and will re-balance itself. The annual wildfires in California immolate vast tracts of the environment, yet still life thrives there. What if we are successful and accelerate the next global cooling cycle, destroying the economic viability of New York Harbor and Boston Harbor by having oceans that are too low? Will government be our solution then, too? Will we fire up all those power plants again? What if humanity actually did want to bend the earth's climate to our will? How would we do it?

no it doesn't re-balance itself. even if it does, the timescale it takes is too big. for a second: locusts, flash floods, volcanic eruptions: they are products of nature. there is no reason to have our own behaviour aggravate our environment against ourselves. that is like saying "well i am going to be fucked up by a volcanic eruption anyway so let's just pour lots of chemicals into the soil"

As far as the argument regarding "change" itself being bad: People elected the most recent President of the United States on the basis he was the symbol of "change," and he has far more power on the immediate state of the world than climate change. Unspecified "change" is only bad when it is politically convenient for the alarmists. I imagine they unanimously voted Democrat in 2008, those in the United States anyway.

voting tendency and political opinion has nothing to do with truth

stop aggregating the two

In Brief: It is not scientists, but politicians who decide how to combat global warming. The IPCC's research arm may be scientists, but the people who draft and implement policy are international bureaucrats with the same "credentials" as Al Gore.

the scientists aren't responsible for the policy failings of any government. stop blaming it on the science then considering all you are saying now is "well the science is sound but the politicians are retarded about it"

fyi bush has done less for the climate than obama so i really don't know where this is coming from

What is the actual percentage of current human contribution to CO2? Well, since I know you'll go back to realclimate, your favorite site: all of it. Given that we will endlessly circle back to this source given any more discussion, for the purposes of getting on to the actual issue at hand, I will concede defeat. Nevermind humanity inducing the CO2 increase is irrelevant. Any factor providing sufficient CO2 would cause the same scenario, like a volcanic eruption for example.

calculate the amount of CO2 expelled during a volcanic eruption and maybe I will believe you

There is zero purpose in arguing with someone whose sources believe man is the primary determinant of CO2, and that CO2 forcing leads primarily to temperature increases. Despite the inherent humanistic hubris involved in such a claim, that doesn't really address the key beef I have with climate change, which is the baffling and idiotic proposed solutions.

"well I can't do basic math therefore I can't argue"

For example, how does expanding the IPCC and various other UN organizations into a globalized wealth redistribution mechanism curb actual emissions? All I see is a bloated bureaucracy engaging in arbitrary mandates. All of these mandates are economically destructive. How can you possibly innovate green technology if you levy absurd levels of taxation on individuals and businesses? How can you have the room to develop and innovate when the government decides that the primary source of the world's energy is to be taxed at a rate the poor cannot afford?

because vested interest of companies means they aren't going to actually innovate because humans don't have an imperative to change otherwise. taxing is necessary if you want something to happen unless there is a great financial short-term reward; global warming is a long-term process

The reason for all those Africa and HIV slides in Lord Monckton's presentation is because Africa's primary problem is a lack of energy infrastructure, a prerequisite to all other forms of modernity. The idea the current human population is unsustainable is ridiculous. The United States produces enough food to feed the entire world (were we not wasting corn on biofuels); the problem comes down to distribution, not supply. Less people would go hungry if they had more technology available to them, and were not subject to the violent tyranny of anti-liberty governments. Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and then went from a net exporter of food to a net importer, all because a backwards, violent administration took over. Monckton's slides on DDT indicate the impact of stupid "green" solutions, where people die because the most effective solution to malaria isn't "eco-friendly" enough for environmental activists like Al Gore, noted non-scientist.

you need to stop thinking in short-term variables

This new, thinly veiled UN redistribution scheme does nothing. The UN only redistributes money to corrupt governments to engage in further tyranny. The UN is responsible for the literal and figurative rape of The Congo. Any appendage of such an organization is tainted with its useless, incompetent, and dangerous forbear.

lol just lol

Point is, the scientists and the science aren't in charge here. The so-called "green jobs" do not exist. For all the inefficiency associated with fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine, it joins with nuclear as the only two power sources viable enough for large-scale energy use. Wind energy is a joke until they can find a way to tame winds in a wider range. Solar needs a serious boost in either storage or absorption ability to be a viable mechanism even as a backup supply. Electric power? From where? Oh. Those nasty coal-fired power plants again. Hydrogen fuel for automobiles needs both testing and an infrastructure, and that infrastructure will be difficult to provide without heavy use of the current fossil-fueled heavy machinery.

solar energy has storage and adsorption ability just fine. its issues are related to pricing, which will go down if you invest more - something you can't do because you don't have a government to invest in them and existing companies can make a quicker buck off of oil.

wind energy has its uses but not on large scale no - does that mean we should stop harnessing it? more green energy we have, the better. we don't need a single green energy source to survive, we can use a multiplicity of them.

nuclear energy is ok

tidal/wave/hydropower also exist and can/should be harnessed more often (well not hydropower so much since the available sites are already being used pretty much)

Now, all of these technologies have applications for low-demand items. A solar panel is more than sufficient to power a portable wave radio. Wind energy can be used to intermittently charge a battery supply for a locality. But these are not major boons for creating a new sector of "green" workers. A rather sickening description, if I do say so myself.

please calculate the amount of energy you can harness from the sun

it is about 10000 times as much energy that we can harness from the sun as that our population demands

whaaat

yes deck, that's science

To illustrate, Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan was bragging about how by 2020, Michigan would have 40,000 new Green Jobs. 40,000 is eleven years? In an area wracked by 15% unemployment? If America were allowed to prosper instead of its current scheme of overbearing government (the only system the UN would implement, as overbearing world government is its calling card), we could create 40,000 jobs a day.

what other jobs would you have them create and what do you think the carbon/nitrogen oxide/sulfur dioxide emissions would be

a lot more than green tech I suspect

But alarmists want to curb carbon now rather than put it to productive uses in the interim. "Act now, question later" is the mantra of the UN and "green" politicians. They want to make it rich off silly carbon trading schemes that are essentially a form of indulgence. If the "status quo" is so catastrophic, then why a tool like carbon credits that exists solely to prolong the "status quo?" The obvious answer is money and power. Who do you suppose makes money off the "trade" part of cap and trade? Why, carbon traders like Al Gore, of course. And the more alarmism is out there, the more the value of an instrument like "carbon credits" goes up. If people think they are doomed in 10 years rather than 20, the "value" of carbon credit doubles, possibly increases tenfold. And of course, if we aren't doomed, well... they aren't worth the paper they are printed on, are they? Without demand to alleviate global doom, carbon credits have the same value as monopoly money.

errr

what

you want us to deplete our carbon reserves just because you are too lazy to invest in green jobs and trade carbon

see it as a reserve that you can use when all else fails but you should always prefer something durable

The oil companies have vested interests? So do the climate alarmists. They stand to profit richly at everyone else's loss, with taxpayer subsidies to boot.

show me how much money alarmists make off other people with taxpayer subsidies

I'm not seeing it

The science may be proven or unproven. Even assuming it is proven, the solutions being proposed are economically destructive and do not address the fundamental problem. How much actual effect will banning incandescent light bulbs and creating an economic windfall for CFL producers have? For the environment, I mean. How about 15 years down the road, when we have billions upon billions of mercury infused light bulbs to dispose of, and nowhere to put them? And of course, the inevitable epidemic of "kids playing ball in house wipes out CFL lamp," leading to a localized biological hazard. Lets not forget the disparate impact on the poor by forcing them to triple the cost of lighting their homes. Few consequences in the world are actually unintended.

more demand for green products will make prices drop

you're saying "well good solutions cost money therefore let's have shitty solutions and not worry about good ones"

stop thinking in the short term

Science is ultimately irrelevant to the political consequences, and if the science can't be attacked, then "its" policy prescriptions must be. Which would be a lot easier if the science were not tied at the hilt to internationalist political organizations who are simply using it as an unassailable truth to justify their loosely climate-related desires.

The "Do Something" mentality is the problem with Global Warming. Never is that "something" specified. It is wrapped in the propagandistic "save the planet" rhetoric, and that is the real fraud, the real hoax of global warming: The idea the planet can be "saved" if only humanity cuts back, if only we limit the human spirit and replace it with paternalistic international agencies. For all the years global warming has been in vogue internationally, it seems this new "green technology" is at the same barely-existent level it has always been at, making perhaps a tiny gain here and there. Yet the expanse of government to research and "fight" it has been astounding. Most of the real innovation has been outside the hallowed halls of redistributionists. The oil companies are not stupid, and do not have the advantages of unlimited public largesse and diplomatic immunity. They actually have to produce value, not just push paper.

A true skeptic has to wonder, what kind of bang for the buck are we getting here? All this government seems so... inefficient. Ironic. Maybe there is a truth to the science. I'll take my chances, though. The current backers of this travesty dressed as naive children's-story-level heroics are making me sacrifice immediate liberties to avert potential future disaster. This is not a tradeoff I am willing to make, especially not given the snail's pace of technology and the promised "green jobs" compared to the leviathan growth in government.

no it's not

 

[m0o]

Awesome subject lol debated many times. So far, questions you and scientists cannot answer.

1. Is global warming happening? reliable proof has yet to be presented that this is the case, however there are indicators, however there are also indicatrs of global cooling and stagnant climate.

2. If it is happening, is it manmade? so far based on speculation on early non conclusive data mankind could be responsible for as much as up to 8% of climate (over a period of 100 years, 2000-2100 greenpeace) change, either warming, cooling or stagnant.

3. If it is happening and it is manmade is it going to be Armageddon? Actually all reserarch to previous drastic climate changes bar asteroid strikes the planet and the off chance we use 1000 nukes creating nuclear winter there is no evidence that global warming would be harmfull to mankind or general population of life on this planet in turns of numbers and life quality. Ice ages, dark ages, cool periods are historically a time where life is stagnant and perhaps declining, warm periods, more degrees then the 2 degrees UN warns us about has been periods of prospect, more life and organisms and evolutions occur and exist in hot climates. Examples would be everything from the great migration of human species across the globe after ice age, the end of the dark ages, can of course argue sociological reasons for the latter and rainforrests etc. There are many more examples.

Time to slice some air in wall of text. Little known fact you would not realise if going by the news, less people die today from natural dissasters then before it was credited to us and could possibly be our fault. Lets not start talking about the warming going up at a higher rate before we had, now have 10000times the size of the industry compared to several decades ago. Anyway to answer the point, humanity has prosperred the best as have overall life on this planet during hot period compared to temperate and cold.

4. If global warming is happening and it is manmade and it is harmfull how do we stop it? greenpeace wants us to live in huts and focus our energy on saving the polar bear, WWF wants to save the blue bird and dodo. Al GOre wants to earn royalties on all industries in the US and is trying to worldwide for his carbon tax program and the states wants to restrict our living from what we may or may not consume, use, spend etc. We get however reports all the time from UN, goverments organisations that man is responsible, 8%... cows and other caddle of the meat family raised for slaughtered covers 38%, oceans over 50%+, vulcanoes 30% the sun 50%+, algies those nasty green ones they wanna make fuel off now, 20%. Computers and all other such electronics, afterawhile you realise they are just spamming new numbers they made up in a new theory model program with 2 variables, oh and clouds and shit as well.

So how do they suggest we resolve this? First lets get all them planes down from the air, even if they they themselves state that during 9/11 when planes were grounded the temperature rose several degrees from the lack of generated jet streams. Lets make only organic food, even if that would mean we have to sacrifice atleast 3billion people to be able to sustain our population. Cut down jobs, oh please working at a windmill is not gonna replace a car plant lol. Raise taxes and cut living standards for all of us but also the third world. It is amusing watching a clinic in Nigeria lose patients because their solar power generator can only run either the cooler for medecin or the machines for sustaining and curing patients, they have to pick one based on case by case because aid organisations promotes "go green". Did you know that if you go by WWF, greenpeace and UN's own numbers, we could prevent global warming tomorrow and revert back to perfect climate (according to them) tomorrow if we erradicated cows, eliminating this species alone would guarantee us global warm free earth for 500 years, throw in pigs etc and we can save even more time, this is however not a good solution, however, killing humans are lol.

So who are these people believing in global warming, some rightfully so, because who can blame them with the information provided right?

1. I believe in 2012 armageddon, some of us think satan comes, some thinks war will happen, but since global warming got hype I am gonna go with that! (wwf with leading politicians etc stated, if we do not stop global warming within 4 years, 2012 the world will end.) Wear tin-foil hats trust me, they can hear us!!

2. I am anti-human, I use to live in a village of 1000 thousands of years ago telling my neighbours that if we have more people in this village it will not be sustainable, some have to die, or, london is too crowded, a city with 1million people is barbaric (rome had) we need to throw people out, today what? 12mill? 6bill is not sustainable, if we want to survive people have to die, that why HIV is great as long as I ain't affected, mIrite?? stop hating your own blood so much, you are like emo kids with knives cutting themselves, yet not deep enough to bleed out.

3. Politicans and others. Fact, goverments always retain more power over time or try to do so, from social programs laws based on morals etc to govern peoples liberty and freedom for more money and power. Of course some are naive, some like many global warming supporters, are good people, they want the best for everyone, thats how communism started, remember? Don't feel bad, you are trying to come up with a way to make everyone happy afterall, unfortunatly that is impossible due to several paradoxes not to mention human biology. Most effective ways for goverments to get this more control, manevolent or benevolent result is less freedom through more tax. Some of the worst instances in humanity has happened in the name of good intentions.

Lets face it, politicians thought -"boy, if we could implement a tax no one can avoid, affects all areas of life, increases revenue by atleast 50%" -"What about breathing?, you know oxygen (life gas.)?" -"nah no one would be that stupid, besides it is hard enough with profiting from water!" -"What about that stuff you exhale after taking a breath?" -"Well I suppose if we could come up with a way to blame this other gas (life gas) for being evil then yeah...oh yeah!!!" -"you this will be perfect, this way we can also have socialism, maybe one day communism again, it worked in SOvjet for Stalin and other leaders."

going OT there, just wanted to chim in on green then new red. But anyway, consider everything carefully, don't take things at face value, for instace, Mars is right now having a warmer period as the other planets, anyway think hard about, is it real? it is dangerous? is it even our fault? and if so and we need to do something, is the solutions presented to you the best ones?

Peace and Hello everyone :)


Edit: Also wanted to add that, when talking with most people who believe in the danger and world coming to an end green... people, I do come across a common type of psychi, many times this same person are prone to beliving in the paranormal, 2012 armageddon not to mention 2000 armageddon, or use to, they also tend to always look at things half empty, pessimistic people. They always tend to overreact, see catastrophe and think that world war 3 is starting everythime they hear about a suicide bombing on the TV. Relax! man.

 

[cantab]

Awesome subject lol debated many times. So far, questions you and scientists cannot answer.

1. Is global warming happening? reliable proof has yet to be presented that this is the case, however there are indicators, however there are also indicatrs of global cooling and stagnant climate.

False. The trend over the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, is clearly upwards. Global warming may have little or even cooling effect in some REGIONS, but the global average is clearly up.

2. If it is happening, is it manmade? so far based on speculation on early non conclusive data mankind could be responsible for as much as up to 8% of climate (over a period of 100 years, 2000-2100 greenpeace) change, either warming, cooling or stagnant.

False. The data's pretty conclusive. The trends of the last 150 years cannot be modelled without including human CO2 emissions. People have tried this.

3. If it is happening and it is manmade is it going to be Armageddon? Actually all reserarch to previous drastic climate changes bar asteroid strikes the planet and the off chance we use 1000 nukes creating nuclear winter there is no evidence that global warming would be harmfull to mankind or general population of life on this planet in turns of numbers and life quality.

False. I've already mentioned the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, a time of rapid climate change and mass extinction. Climate change has been hypothesised to be the cause of some other mass extinctions, including the biggest one of all - the end Permian, when 95% of species ended and the biosphere didn't recover for millions of years.
The developed world will probably ride out climate change, we're rich enough and resourceful enough. But the impact on less developed countries may be severe.

Ice ages, dark ages, cool periods are historically a time where life is stagnant and perhaps declining, warm periods, more degrees then the 2 degrees UN warns us about has been periods of prospect, more life and organisms and evolutions occur and exist in hot climates. Examples would be everything from the great migration of human species across the globe after ice age, the end of the dark ages, can of course argue sociological reasons for the latter and rainforrests etc. There are many more examples.

Probably false, and irrelevant. Humanity evolved during ice ages. What damages life is not the absolute temperature, but the speed of CHANGE. Stable 20 C average or stable 10 C average life evolves to cope with it well. Change from one to the other too fast and you get turmoil/

Time to slice some air in wall of text. Little known fact you would not realise if going by the news, less people die today from natural dissasters then before it was credited to us and could possibly be our fault. Lets not start talking about the warming going up at a higher rate before we had, now have 10000times the size of the industry compared to several decades ago. Anyway to answer the point, humanity has prosperred the best as have overall life on this planet during hot period compared to temperate and cold.

Correlation is not causation. Global warming and human prosperity have the same underlying cause - increasing industrialisation and energy usage.

4. If global warming is happening and it is manmade and it is harmfull how do we stop it? greenpeace wants us to live in huts and focus our energy on saving the polar bear, WWF wants to save the blue bird and dodo. Al GOre wants to earn royalties on all industries in the US and is trying to worldwide for his carbon tax program and the states wants to restrict our living from what we may or may not consume, use, spend etc. We get however reports all the time from UN, goverments organisations that man is responsible, 8%... cows and other caddle of the meat family raised for slaughtered covers 38%, oceans over 50%+, vulcanoes 30% the sun 50%+, algies those nasty green ones they wanna make fuel off now, 20%. Computers and all other such electronics, afterawhile you realise they are just spamming new numbers they made up in a new theory model program with 2 variables, oh and clouds and shit as well.

How we mitigate climate change is very simple - we reduce our CO2 emissions. We can do that in two ways. One is reducing our energy usage - and this makes economic sense even without considering climate change. The other is reducing the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy. Again, with fossil fuels limited in supply and thus likely to rise in price long term, this also makes economic sense anyway.

So who are these people believing in global warming, some rightfully so, because who can blame them with the information provided right?

1. I believe in 2012 armageddon, some of us think satan comes, some thinks war will happen, but since global warming got hype I am gonna go with that! (wwf with leading politicians etc stated, if we do not stop global warming within 4 years, 2012 the world will end.) Wear tin-foil hats trust me, they can hear us!!

2. I am anti-human, I use to live in a village of 1000 thousands of years ago telling my neighbours that if we have more people in this village it will not be sustainable, some have to die, or, london is too crowded, a city with 1million people is barbaric (rome had) we need to throw people out, today what? 12mill? 6bill is not sustainable, if we want to survive people have to die, that why HIV is great as long as I ain't affected, mIrite?? stop hating your own blood so much, you are like emo kids with knives cutting themselves, yet not deep enough to bleed out.

3. Politicans and others. Fact, goverments always retain more power over time or try to do so, from social programs laws based on morals etc to govern peoples liberty and freedom for more money and power. Of course some are naive, some like many global warming supporters, are good people, they want the best for everyone, thats how communism started, remember? Don't feel bad, you are trying to come up with a way to make everyone happy afterall, unfortunatly that is impossible due to several paradoxes not to mention human biology. Most effective ways for goverments to get this more control, manevolent or benevolent result is less freedom through more tax. Some of the worst instances in humanity has happened in the name of good intentions.

4. I have studied the science at a quality University and understand it.

Edit: Also wanted to add that, when talking with most people who believe in the danger and world coming to an end green... people, I do come across a common type of psychi, many times this same person are prone to beliving in the paranormal, 2012 armageddon not to mention 2000 armageddon, or use to, they also tend to always look at things half empty, pessimistic people. They always tend to overreact, see catastrophe and think that world war 3 is starting everythime they hear about a suicide bombing on the TV. Relax! man.

False. Most people who accept climate change is a problem do so because they understand the science. Research into geoengineering - technological means of averting climate change - is a sign that those researchers believe humanity is capable of fixing it.

 

[m0o]

False. The trend over the last 150 years, since the industrial revolution, is clearly upwards. Global warming may have little or even cooling effect in some REGIONS, but the global average is clearly up.

False. The data's pretty conclusive. The trends of the last 150 years cannot be modelled without including human CO2 emissions. People have tried this.

Not true since the modells are flawed to begin with and they can still not prove it because of that and just lack of data to say the least, it doesn't help that every model they use they always input us indtead of several other factors that needs to be researched, and when a model fails, so far hundreds, they make a new model with differen't parameters and input us and our emissions to prove cause and effect. I have yet to come across a peer-reviewd report that holds up under scrutiny or is recognised as fact or credible. Can you emember reading anything about such findings that would if they existed end the debate? no not even the ippc have a political organ asking for more funds with only goal of proving it is mankinds fault dismissing other science even that related to the sun affecting climate change. Thats why so many scientists have had to even use legal support to be able to leave the ippc reports and their findings because they did not agree with. http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/arctic-scientist-ipcc-ignores-natural-causes-of-global-warming/ Just one of many bits not reaching mass media in many countries. I also like to make a point that, we do not even have instruments to collect weather readings across the globe to collect that sets of date, you and others presume we have acces to, you also assume you know 150 years of industrialisation is responsible? there are NO facts in any recognised science journal or research institute confirming that theory, as of yet.




False. I've already mentioned the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, a time of rapid climate change and mass extinction. Climate change has been hypothesised to be the cause of some other mass extinctions, including the biggest one of all - the end Permian, when 95% of species ended and the biosphere didn't recover for millions of years.
The developed world will probably ride out climate change, we're rich enough and resourceful enough. But the impact on less developed countries may be severe.


Not all true and then you select that and dismiss climate changes, more so of positive nature, especially global warming contrary to cooling. As for the developed world, today if we grow local organic food we can sustain 3 out of soon 7 billion people, if we use alternate energy resources the "THIRD WORLD" will revert from early to modern industrialisation and benefits that carry back to the dark ages, you tink that helps them? or are you baseing this of a meeting under water on some resort island in the pacific about to go under screaming "blame", "blame the world our island is sinking"? because islands came to be and sunk since earth and the oceans formed all the way up to the years before we created the first factory, or did we all fart to much? breath enough already right? If you place same enviromental restrictions on the third world, hello genocide, would you be as open for that solution if you lived in Africa? I doubt it, it is easy to be an enviromentalist in the west I know.


Probably false, and irrelevant. Humanity evolved during ice ages. What damages life is not the absolute temperature, but the speed of CHANGE. Stable 20 C average or stable 10 C average life evolves to cope with it well. Change from one to the other too fast and you get turmoil/

What are you on about? do you think our ancestors that progressed, flourished did so in Sweden where I live with a thick layer of ice covering it? do you think civilizations pre-dating had vast culture and progress, expansion in siberia? or Africa, Asia? Oh and please explain to me this turmoil, with facts proving that such changes did not occur before without devasting effects please,
Ice and snow increase the Earth's albedo, i.e. they make it reflect more of the sun's energy and absorb less. Hence, when the air temperature decreases, ice and snow fields grow, and this continues until competition with a negative feedback mechanism forces the system to an equilibrium. Also, the reduction in forests caused by the ice's expansion increases albedo. Yeah life flourish in cold temperatures, sure... as opposed to a tropical climate. There have been fast changes in temperatures recorded in history, fast changes bigger then oooo 2 degrees warmer scenario. Just check history for the 18th century, 17th, 13th etc between hot, hotter, much colder and so on. That historical documentation is actually more reliable then that ippc's models foretell.


Correlation is not causation. Global warming and human prosperity have the same underlying cause - increasing industrialisation and energy usage.

So we should only count the last 150 years? tell that to Al Gore using graphs from the great ice age that he later have to trash due to lack of evidence that it is Co2 causing the upswing when the data seems to suggest otherwise unless you work for the ippc (later Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years, but never mentions the most significant point: Global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower.)

How we mitigate climate change is very simple - we reduce our CO2 emissions. We can do that in two ways. One is reducing our energy usage - and this makes economic sense even without considering climate change. The other is reducing the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy. Again, with fossil fuels limited in supply and thus likely to rise in price long term, this also makes economic sense anyway.


There is currently no economical model that works for cutting down on co2 levels, don't lie, even the latest nobel prize winner this year in economics is trying to come up with one, so far has theory about natural resources is better managed by the locals, wow that ehm, well she and others are admittely still trying to come up with something. Also how do you set up a system for the whole world "god" that regulates our lives in what we drive, eat, use etc fairly and on what basis current models did you come up with the needed numbers? ARe we responsible for 8%? who is more responsible? oh don't let the fact that AS OF YET, there is no fact that proves global warming exist, or that it is manmade, just models, theories and contradicting ones you and others dismiss because you love doomsday scenarios, I do to, but mostly on film ;)


4. I have studied the science at a quality University and understand it.

False. Most people who accept climate change is a problem do so because they understand the science. Research into geoengineering - technological means of averting climate change - is a sign that those researchers believe humanity is capable of fixing it.

Then how come they can not yet present that research as facts without failing and asking for more grants to prove what you claim has already been proven by the scientists that just earlier the other month asked for more grants??? Yet we "idiots" have no problem of accepting string theories, quantum mechanics and relativity etc. Is there a translation problem? or lack of research and facts?

answers in bold. I could go on and on, but as long as you argue that there is proof there is no real point, because even the scientists using these models admits that they can't be sure, I on the other hand, is innocent until proven guilty, and if the cost of being wrong is also sentencing billions to even more starvation, suffering and mass death not to mention mass unemployment in the west and less liberty then... well, besides, again like I stated earlier, why not take the easiest route with the least human casualties if it is true? like wipe out the Cow species, I bet people can live without cow milk and beef if they are able to keep having growth, their jobs and food on their plate and, progress, tech progress by trying to invent computers running on corn is not progress, it is taking a step backwords.

I bet the reason you would disagree is hat you would argue that my idea of life is not sustainable, so you like every communist party out there take the opportunity to use "global warming" as a means to an end, socialism and or communism, all for the good of the planet right? Well I am sorry, but before I hand over all my money and start working on a crops field with the red book in my pocket, I want one thing, proof! is that to much to ask for before slapping me with biggest tax increase since England forced the US to a war of freedom? or possible losing my livelyhood and my neighbours too and loved ones? revert back to worse times? to condemn over 2billion people alone to go back to what they had before, worse like India and CHina? Africa? Is it?


PS: I do enjoy a bit of discussion :)


Edit: To make sure there are no missunderstandings. We do have enviromental problems we need to adress including resources, but at the moment we are investing more money and effort tackleing something that is unlikely and not proven, funny how global warming is the only scientific field were we have the lowest bar of standards. It would be an uproar if less scientifically backed data with too many contradictions were layed out as scientific evidence in other fields like chemistry. But instead of creating more tree plantations, working on increasing population of schools of fish and getting rid of made toxins sprayed on crop fields we wanna dismantle and revert on growth and progress. Instead, funny, the way farmers have used their lands in Cali destroying the ocean by pollution (real proven bad enviromental effect) it is now celebrated because they wanna use the bad algies in the oceans as fuel for cars etc. As funny how chopping down trees, rainforest in Brazil to plant things to make fuel of has awarded Brazil with prestegious rewards for being "green" lol Time to adress real problem no? don't worry we have several ones that needs to be adressed, even some doomsday ones, only difference is that they are REAL.