I Told You Global Warming Wasn't "Settled Science"

[SDW2001]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

This article discusses the myth of a scientific consensus on Global Warming. Notable quotes:

"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun.

More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet....

...I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

You all know where I stand. Global Warming is not man-made in my opinion. There have been large temperature variations during the Earth's history, certainly larger than anything predicted even if Global Warming takes place. GW is simply the latest cause for the environmental wack-a-doos. It won't be discussed in 20 years. By then we'll be back to global cooling. :err:

I'll place a disclaimer on this post though, as I have done in the past: I still think we need to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, particularly oil.

[dmz]

I think when we can separate the people who spike trees from the GW discussion, we'll be able to get somewhere.

[hardeeharhar]

Huh?

Al Gore's quote says that global warming is occurring.

The 'deniers' debate the EXCLUSIVITY of humans as the cause of global warming.

So wtf are you off on?

global warming suggests nothing of the cause but in fact refers to the FACT that the world has been getting warmer.

[dmz]

global warming suggests nothing of the cause but in fact refers to the FACT that the world has been getting warmer.
I think it's been co-opted by the usual green suspects.

[BRussell]

That Gallup poll of scientists contradicted everything else I've seen so dramatically that I checked into it, and it appears to be bogus. Here's a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Other_older_s urveys_of_scientists) discussing that poll, and here's another (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change). It appears to be something that someone either made up or misinterpreted, and someone else cited it, etc.

There absolutely is a scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Look through that wikipedia link for all the scientific organizations' statements on the matter.

[addabox]

That Gallup poll of scientists contradicted everything else I've seen so dramatically that I checked into it, and it appears to be bogus. Here's a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Other_older_s urveys_of_scientists) discussing that poll, and here's another (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change). It appears to be something that someone either made up or misinterpreted, and someone else cited it, etc.

There absolutely is a scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Look through that wikipedia link for all the scientific organizations' statements on the matter.

Yeah, it looks like another winger urban myth, for sure. George Will tossed it in a column way back when, it got cited and recited and and now it's just a "fact". Plus, it looks like some of the "deniers" that got named were quite pissed to be so labeled (at least one writing the paper to complain of being libeled).

The author's basic technique appears to be to conflate "any variance at all" with "denier", which is how he gets his little list. So, a scientist who in every significant respect agrees with the mechanisms, causes and likely effects of global warming, but has a quibble with some particular, can be portrayed as a "skeptic".

I wonder if the "global warming is a hoax" crowed ever stop to wonder why, if that is the case, so much of the material purporting to demonstrate that fact is so patently contrived, misleading or outright false? You would think that the "truth" wouldn't have to resort to so much weasel parsing and insinuation, wouldn't you?

[Jubelum]

Or it just could be that some of us are using our noodles to reach a different view. One that says that Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before now... and we're all still here, overpopulating the shit out of the planet. We're going to need those extended growing seasons, BTW... :p You cannot isolate the water vapor/ CO2/terrestrial methane thing so put a fork in it already. Both sides have a financial and power interest in this debate. It's FAR more than just "save the planet." It means running it as well.

Is there a cure for global warming? Yes. When we all submit to have most aspects of our lives dictated to us from The Hague, Kyoto, or Washington. Then we'll hear the end of it. But not until then, regardless of what we do. You see, no amount of carbon cut/offset./whatever will EVER be enough becuase it is a mechanism (and quite effective, I might add) for CONTROL. And most of you are buying it, hook, line, and sinker. :rolleyes:

[addabox]

Or it just could be that some of us are using our noodles to reach a different view. One that says that Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before now... and we're all still here, overpopulating the shit out of the planet. We're going to need those extended growing seasons, BTW... :p You cannot isolate the water vapor/ CO2/terrestrial methane thing so put a fork in it already. Both sides have a financial and power interest in this debate. It's FAR more than just "save the planet." It means running it as well.

Is there a cure for global warming? Yes. When we all submit to have most aspects of our lives dictated to us from The Hague, Kyoto, or Washington. Then we'll hear the end of it. But not until then, regardless of what we do. You see, no amount of carbon cut/offset./whatever will EVER be enough becuase it is a mechanism (and quite effective, I might add) for CONTROL. And most of you are buying it, hook, line, and sinker. :rolleyes:

Dude, sorry, but you're fucking nuts. Your obsession with the socialist mind control satellites just really isn't helpful.

What is the point of this kind of "control"? How does reducing reliance on carbon fuel sources play into the hands of the puppet masters of the Hague? How would developing alternative energy sources bring us closer to One World Tyranny? How in the world are carbon offsets an "effective mechanism of control"? Over what? To what end?

The logic of global warming denialists is always obliged to include this unexamined bit of sophistry-- that because it is demonstrably true that there are very large, very powerful, very well funded vested interests that would prefer not to see money shifted away from carbon based energy systems, it must follow that those that would advocate for such a shift are also very large, very powerful vested interests with lots of money at stake.

Therefore, "science" must somehow be this massively lucrative, powerful enterprise on par with big oil and nation states, or (seeings as that actually is kind of silly on the face of it) must be in cahoots with this nameless, shadowy conspiracy of world government plotters, America resenters and some completely fantastical species of supper luddite modern life hater that wants to see all civilization returned to hunter-gatherer status.

All this freaky invention just because you can't accept that science is what it is and is saying what it is saying.

[MarcUK]

As ever, its business as usual.

Why is it, the God bothering right winger types all hold the same position that its perfectly OK to spend trillions (how much have we blown to date?) on blowing the shit out of the islamic rag-heads based on faulty evidence, planted evidence and lies, which is benefitting no-one except the likes of haliburton. It isn't even benefitting them to any degree. Except the psychological desire to plant one on those evil nasty people who dont believe in the same 'good book' - except that they do anyway.

but begrudge every dollar spent on cleaning up the world, so that everyone on the planet can live in a cleaner, safer place, which by their claim is based on faulty, planted evidence and lies.

What a fucking bunch of selfish, narrowminded, delusional scumbags - the lot of them.

[BR]

I just find it rather hilarious that the same people who would argue that atheists should believe in God and accept Jesus, because if right those atheists lose nothing and if wrong the atheists gain everything, insist on doing nothing about global warming when the same exact argument could be used with global warming too.

What's the harm in reducing carbon emissions? Where's the harm in funding alternative energy sources? Quit spending so much fucking time and effort trying to deny global warming and just do some good things for the environment. At best it may help avoid catastrophe. At worst your neighborhood air is cleaner. At least the benefits of erring on the side of caution here are actually proven to be real.

[shetline]

Or it just could be that some of us are using our noodles to reach a different view.

Don't forget the starting point of this thread -- which "some of us"? The initial claim that there's a lot of dissent in the scientific community over GW doesn't seem to hold up, not unless you play dishonest games of magnifying every little scientific quibble so as to count each quibbler among the "deniers".

One that says that Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years before now... and we're all still here, overpopulating the shit out of the planet.

If by "we" you mean living organisms in general, yes. But particular species come and go all of the time, with occasional massive die-offs. Just because these die-offs have happened before is no reason to be blasé about, particularly when your own species is threatened, your own species is triggering one of these cycles (in an unprecedented manner), and your own species might, if it's collectively smart enough, be able to do something to side-step a catastrophe -- which is no less catastrophic simply because such things have happened before and life in general keeps bouncing back.

Both sides have a financial and power interest in this debate. It's FAR more than just "save the planet." It means running it as well.

The comparison between "both sides" here is absolutely ludicrous. You're going to compare the power of fossil fuel industries with guys scrambling for tenure and grants from the NSF? If it were all just a power and money game, why don't the vast majority of scientists simply team up with the big guys with very deep pockets and shill for them?

[shetline]

What's the harm in reducing carbon emissions? Where's the harm in funding alternative energy sources?

Exactly!

Transitioning to other energy sources probably won't be completely painless -- something which GW deniers, as well as the GW apathetic (those who don't deny GW, but who blow off the idea of actively doing anything about it) will harp on endlessly as if the potential problems of such a transition were the only problems that mattered -- but there are so many good reasons, totally apart from GW, to do pretty much all the same things one needs to do to fight GW, that it practically renders the GW motivation for developing alternative energy academic.

[NOFEER]

the key to "human made GW" is that its "our fault" namely the USA, and it's another socialist attack on capitalism. the point they want to make, that since it's our fault we should be "taxed" by a world government, and another world shift of resources and money to another country or peoples. that's the scam "income redistribution" on a global scale. it's a world tax the USA tactic. of course the UN wants this so it can get thier cut like the "oil for food" cash cow.

[iPoster]

Wait, this seems familiar somehow? (http://claudiarosett.pajamasmedia.com/documents/Global%20Cooling%20-%20Newsweel%201975.pdf)

Global Cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

Seems like John Q. Public has forgotten about the hole in the ozone layer too...! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion)

Nuclear winter, global cooling, ozone layer depletion, global warming...somebody make a decision which one is going to doom the human race already!! :rolleyes:


Seriously, I feel that reducing pollution/carbon can't be a bad thing. Since nobody can deny the earth is warming right now, science needs to concentrate on trying to determine if it's solely the result of man-made causes, or if a natural warming cycle is causing/contributing to this.

[trumptman]

What's the harm in reducing carbon emissions? Where's the harm in funding alternative energy sources? Quit spending so much fucking time and effort trying to deny global warming and just do some good things for the environment. At best it may help avoid catastrophe. At worst your neighborhood air is cleaner. At least the benefits of erring on the side of caution here are actually proven to be real.

Well the issue again comes down to redefining the word "pollution." I think everyone was pretty much in agreement when it referred to issues like acid rain, or using our natural resources in a way that damaged or didn't sustain them.

However carbon dioxide is that stuff you breath out your mouth. Do you really have the ability to breath 20% less?

Also many of the solutions are knocked down as well. Most of the proponents should just be honest and note that they want around 50% of current humanity to disappear, even more if they want to keep the large homes, cars and jets they tool around in.

Watch those environmentally friendly people piss and moan about the birds killed or the view ruined when you install those wind generating plants/farms. Watch everyone complain about nuclear power. We are now removing dams because a source we thought was environmentally friendly because it alters what breeds and can survive there.

That also really brings the crux of the issue which is change of any sort is very bad. If we dam a stream, use the hydro-electric power and new species of fish flourish, but other species cannot survive, it is deemed bad by environmentalists. In my view we had trade offs where some species now flourish, the power is clean, the water is conserved and used by humans, etc. However by environmental reasoning, it is all a big loss.

I live by Salton Sea which is basically one giant accident. Yet now birds use this accident in their migration patterns. So somehow we have to sustain it, even though it makes no sense to sustain an accident that doesn't help the environment in any fashion. Perhaps those birds might not migrate in the same fashion or might even lower their numbers because of the change. However the change was an accident. This was noted with caribou and the oil pipelines raising their numbers. Anything outside of nature is bad according to environmental views.

I don't think people are opposed to new and creative solutions. However you must also realize that there are people who only endorse the one true path what nature engineered accidental or otherwise and nothing else. Ethanol is still raping the planet and killing the poor by that reasoning for example.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/oh_no_not_this_shit.jpg

[giant]

So, SDW gets burned by drudge again and again and again and again and again, and yet he still reads that shit. WTF

[FormerLurker]

That also really brings the crux of the issue which is change of any sort is very bad. If we dam a stream, use the hydro-electric power and new species of fish flourish, but other species cannot survive, it is deemed bad by environmentalists. In my view we had trade offs where some species now flourish, the power is clean, the water is conserved and used by humans, etc. However by environmental reasoning, it is all a big loss.

http://www.geocities.com/rgstylerfishingpage/blinky.jpg

[franksargent]

Well the issue again comes down to redefining the word "pollution." I think everyone was pretty much in agreement when it referred to issues like acid rain, or using our natural resources in a way that damaged or didn't sustain them.

However carbon dioxide is that stuff you breath out your mouth. Do you really have the ability to breath 20% less?

Also many of the solutions are knocked down as well. Most of the proponents should just be honest and note that they want around 50% of current humanity to disappear, even more if they want to keep the large homes, cars and jets they tool around in.

Watch those environmentally friendly people piss and moan about the birds killed or the view ruined when you install those wind generating plants/farms. Watch everyone complain about nuclear power. We are now removing dams because a source we thought was environmentally friendly because it alters what breeds and can survive there.

That also really brings the crux of the issue which is change of any sort is very bad. If we dam a stream, use the hydro-electric power and new species of fish flourish, but other species cannot survive, it is deemed bad by environmentalists. In my view we had trade offs where some species now flourish, the power is clean, the water is conserved and used by humans, etc. However by environmental reasoning, it is all a big loss.

I live by Salton Sea which is basically one giant accident. Yet now birds use this accident in their migration patterns. So somehow we have to sustain it, even though it makes no sense to sustain an accident that doesn't help the environment in any fashion. Perhaps those birds might not migrate in the same fashion or might even lower their numbers because of the change. However the change was an accident. This was noted with caribou and the oil pipelines raising their numbers. Anything outside of nature is bad according to environmental views.

I don't think people are opposed to new and creative solutions. However you must also realize that there are people who only endorse the one true path what nature engineered accidental or otherwise and nothing else. Ethanol is still raping the planet and killing the poor by that reasoning for example.

Nick

WTF are you talking about?

The air we inhale is roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.96% argon and 0.04% carbon dioxide, helium, water, and other gases. (% by volume)

The permanent gases in air we exhale are roughly 78% nitrogen, 15% to 18% oxygen, 4% to 5% carbon dioxide and 0.96% argon (% by volume). Additionaly vapours and trace gases are present: 5% water vapour, several parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, 1 part per million (ppm) of ammonia and less than 1 ppm of acetone, methanol, ethanol and other volatile organic compounds.

Do I really need to dust off the gas equation and prove how insignificant that contribution is wrt burning of fossil fuels to the overall CO2 budget?

[BRussell]

I don't think people are opposed to new and creative solutions. However you must also realize that there are people who only endorse the one true path what nature engineered accidental or otherwise and nothing else. Ethanol is still raping the planet and killing the poor by that reasoning for example.

Nick Here are the two sides I see: One side wants to figure out how to do something about it, the other side just screams LIBRUL HOAX!

[hardeeharhar]

WTF are you talking about?



Do I really need to dust off the gas equation and prove how insignificant that contribution is wrt burning of fossil fuels to the overall CO2 budget?
do you even need an equation?

in terms of co2, we exhale what we eat. what we eat is renewable -- it is a net zero balance.

in other words, ANYONE who suggests that we shouldn't be worried about non-renewable carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere because WE breath it out is a fucking imbecile of the first order.

No surprise here that certain members fall in that category.

[SDW2001]

Dude, sorry, but you're fucking nuts. Your obsession with the socialist mind control satellites just really isn't helpful.

What is the point of this kind of "control"? How does reducing reliance on carbon fuel sources play into the hands of the puppet masters of the Hague? How would developing alternative energy sources bring us closer to One World Tyranny? How in the world are carbon offsets an "effective mechanism of control"? Over what? To what end?

The logic of global warming denialists is always obliged to include this unexamined bit of sophistry-- that because it is demonstrably true that there are very large, very powerful, very well funded vested interests that would prefer not to see money shifted away from carbon based energy systems, it must follow that those that would advocate for such a shift are also very large, very powerful vested interests with lots of money at stake.

Therefore, "science" must somehow be this massively lucrative, powerful enterprise on par with big oil and nation states, or (seeings as that actually is kind of silly on the face of it) must be in cahoots with this nameless, shadowy conspiracy of world government plotters, America resenters and some completely fantastical species of supper luddite modern life hater that wants to see all civilization returned to hunter-gatherer status.

All this freaky invention just because you can't accept that science is what it is and is saying what it is saying.

Ahh, but it IS powerful and lucrative. This is about one thing: Money. This is about forcing the United States to accept protocols that "level the playing field" for other nations economically. Meanwhile, a "developing" nation like China will be exempted, just as it is under Kyoto. This will damage the US economy and not others. Moreover, carbon trading, green energy, etc. are all big money makers.

Of course, you also have the "true believers," who started the entire thing. They're focus is anti-globilzation and wack-a-doo "spotted owl first" diplomacy. It's the lefty environmentalists' ultimate cause.
They can use Global Warming as an umbrella for EVERY ONE of their causes: Pollution? Check. Acid Rain? Check. Rainforests? Check. Overpopulation? Check. Fossil fuel use? Check. Raising and eating livestock? Check! Overpopulation? Check!

I also reject your notion of "deniers" relying on falsehoods. The links BRussell provided don't exactly fully refute the claim in the article, and even if they did, that wouldn't be evidence of "lying." And really..speaking of questionable evidence, why is it that whenever someone speaks out on the topic, they are mocked and labeled a "denier?" If the evidence was that clear, that...eh...true....why would that approach be necessary?

The issue here is that there are intelligent people out there who have questions that the GW "blind accepters" cannot answer. One of these is the point I've raised about our climate changing over millions of years, far more than it has now. Another is the fact that humans contribute only 3% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere....why would reducing them help, when 97% of them remain unchanged? No one has provided decent answers to these questions. Those that try post graphs of atmospheric CO2 levels and argue for a few posts, then run away and lob the "denier" label. Until I get some decent answers to these questions, I won't be convinced. Call me what you will.

[hardeeharhar]

um...

your 97% number is all greenhouse gases including water vapor. the greenhouse gas that is experiencing the most significant change in concentration is CO2 and this is something that is happening as a direct result of human activity. in other words, there is a set percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere where temperature change is historically slow, and there is what is happening now which is unprecedented in human history.

[iPoster]

Nice one, Artman!


Interesting graph of CO^2 here:

http://i12.tinypic.com/63rxys8.gif

IIRC, don't herd animals produce more greenhouse gases than all human sources combined?

[trumptman]

Here are the two sides I see: One side wants to figure out how to do something about it, the other side just screams LIBRUL HOAX!

Here's the two sides I see: One side wants to solve the problems related to pollution the way we always have, by allowing technology, efficiency gains, and industrial progress to both improve our lives and the health overall of our planet.

The other side wants to control our lives under the guise of fixing the problem while continuing to jet around the planet and live in mansions on both coasts. They also want to profit from their non-solutions (carbon trading) related to the problem.

They don't scream LIBRUL HOAX. They scream anti-science, anti-reason apes!

Nick

[SDW2001]

um...

your 97% number is all greenhouse gases including water vapor. the greenhouse gas that is experiencing the most significant change in concentration is CO2 and this is something that is happening as a direct result of human activity. in other words, there is a set percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere where temperature change is historically slow, and there is what is happening now which is unprecedented in human history.

Assuming that's accurate, you're stil wrong: It's not unprecendented. Not at all. It's only unprecedented if you read graphs that go back 1,000 years, which in the relative terms of Earth history is less time that it takes me to post this: <rolleyes>

[hardeeharhar]

no I am not. In human history, there has never been this concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Period.

Really. You ask for an explanation and then attack the messanger. Fuckwad.

[addabox]

Ahh, but it IS powerful and lucrative. This is about one thing: Money. This is about forcing the United States to accept protocols that "level the playing field" for other nations economically. Meanwhile, a "developing" nation like China will be exempted, just as it is under Kyoto.

Specific implementations of the Kyoto Accords do not equal the case for global warming. Treaties are negotiable. Scientific evidence is not.

This will damage the US economy and not others.

How do you know that? Clearly, the age of cheap, plentiful oil is at an end. The economies that do the best job of making the transition to post carbon energy infrastructure will be in the best position to thrive in the 21st century. New research, new industries, new delivery systems, all create jobs and wealth.


Moreover, carbon trading, green energy, etc. are all big money makers.

Compared to what? And to the extent that that is true, why is that bad, to a conservative? If the notion is that "being a money maker" is a sure sign of dubious motivation, what are we to make of big oil?

If the fact that there is money changing hands makes you suspicious of the claims of global warming, you must be completely insulted by the claims of big oil and its shills. No? Huh.

Of course, you also have the "true believers," who started the entire thing. They're focus is anti-globilzation and wack-a-doo "spotted owl first" diplomacy. It's the lefty environmentalists' ultimate cause.

Really? Hippies are in charge of science? Is there no end to their mischief and cunning?


They can use Global Warming as an umbrella for EVERY ONE of their causes: Pollution? Check. Acid Rain? Check. Rainforests? Check. Overpopulation? Check. Fossil fuel use? Check. Raising and eating livestock? Check! Overpopulation? Check!

How the damn hippies in your head do or do not make use of global warming as a catch-all principle has no bearing on the science. If the science indicates that we are on a bad path that can be changed with better policy, what do you care if somebody is also mentioning that decreasing carbon emission also has the benefit of decreasing pollution and acid rain?

You seem to be saying that since the response to global warming may take a form that would be harmonious with the agenda of people you have a visceral, emotional dislike for, any response to global warming must be rejected. Or the hippies win. Which you find intolerable.

I also reject your notion of "deniers" relying on falsehoods. The links BRussell provided don't exactly fully refute the claim in the article, and even if they did, that wouldn't be evidence of "lying."

But this is the pattern of the kind of things "skeptics", if you prefer, are constantly citing as evidence for their case. Every damn time. The same "but what about water vapor!!!???" and "volcanoes!!!!" and "in the seventies they were saying....!!!!".

Just do a little research outside of the winger circle jerk, for the love of God. The same dozen or so "gotchas", endlessly presented, endlessly, conclusively refuted, then here they are again, BUT WHAT ABOUT VOLCANOES MR. GLOBAL WARMING, WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, HUH??? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!! CASE CLOSED!!! LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!

I look at shit like that, and as a "person who used his noodle" I have to think: "these people are totally full of shit. If they have to rely on the ignorance of their supporters to spam the discourse with trivially mistaken caveats, how serious can the they be? And how stupid do they think I am?"


And really..speaking of questionable evidence, why is it that whenever someone speaks out on the topic, they are mocked and labeled a "denier?" If the evidence was that clear, that...eh...true....why would that approach be necessary?

Because when "someone speaks out" by saying a lot of patently untrue things that a few minutes research would reveal to be untrue they deserved to be mocked?

Because the simple minded falsehoods that are being spread are being spread with the aggressive support of deep pocket energy industries? As in a well financed propaganda campaign designed to cast doubt in the average (read, scientifically unsophisticated) person's mind about the causes and likely outcomes of global warming?

The issue here is that there are intelligent people out there who have questions that the GW "blind accepters" cannot answer. One of these is the point I've raised about our climate changing over millions of years, far more than it has now. Another is the fact that humans contribute only 3% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere....why would reducing them help, when 97% of them remain unchanged? No one has provided decent answers to these questions. Those that try post graphs of atmospheric CO2 levels and argue for a few posts, then run away and lob the "denier" label. Until I get some decent answers to these questions, I won't be convinced. Call me what you will.

And there, in a nutshell, is why people who talk like you deserve to be mocked. You, and others, have had those "questions" responded to over and over and over again. And not with a few graphs by people who subsequently "run away", but substantively, at length, in lucid prose that takes great pains to explain why historical climate change doesn't change the significance, proximate causes or reasonable responses to the current climate forcing, or why your tired old "3% can't matter that much" is simply an ignorant misunderstanding.

Since you have already, repeatedly, gotten "decent answers to your questions", I think you might be reasonably called "willfully ignorant". What drives you to close your mind to the abundant evidence, I cannot say.

[screener]

The other side wants to control our lives under the guise of fixing the problem while continuing to jet around the planet and live in mansions on both coasts. They also want to profit from their non-solutions (carbon trading) related to the problem.

They don't scream LIBRUL HOAX. They scream anti-science, anti-reason apes!

Nick

You need to get laid man.

[addabox]

You need to get laid man.

Really. It's an entire theory of how the world works based on high school resentments.

[screener]

Really. It's an entire theory of how the world works based on high school resentments.

I'd be interested to know who and what he is teaching/educating.

[jimmac]

Dude, sorry, but you're fucking nuts. Your obsession with the socialist mind control satellites just really isn't helpful.

What is the point of this kind of "control"? How does reducing reliance on carbon fuel sources play into the hands of the puppet masters of the Hague? How would developing alternative energy sources bring us closer to One World Tyranny? How in the world are carbon offsets an "effective mechanism of control"? Over what? To what end?

The logic of global warming denialists is always obliged to include this unexamined bit of sophistry-- that because it is demonstrably true that there are very large, very powerful, very well funded vested interests that would prefer not to see money shifted away from carbon based energy systems, it must follow that those that would advocate for such a shift are also very large, very powerful vested interests with lots of money at stake.

Therefore, "science" must somehow be this massively lucrative, powerful enterprise on par with big oil and nation states, or (seeings as that actually is kind of silly on the face of it) must be in cahoots with this nameless, shadowy conspiracy of world government plotters, America resenters and some completely fantastical species of supper luddite modern life hater that wants to see all civilization returned to hunter-gatherer status.

All this freaky invention just because you can't accept that science is what it is and is saying what it is saying.

I second the motion! I've been reading for years how some people here talk about GW and how it's not real or proven or whatever.

In this day and age with all the evidence that's been submitted if you believe GW isn't for real and is very probably caused by man you're chock full o' nuts!:no:

You know there are many basic things in this world that we use everyday that we don't understand or know all the aspects of how they work. But we do know the end result. And we understand the cause and effect of the item.

It's not so much as they don't believe it's that they don't want to believe.;)

[jimmac]

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/oh_no_not_this_shit.jpg

:lol:

So how many pictures do you have? Or do you have just an endless supply from some web page somewhere?:lol:

[addabox]

I second the motion! I've been reading for years how some people here talk about GW and how it's not real or proven or whatever.

In this day and age with all the evidence that's been submitted if you believe GW isn't for real and is very probably caused by man you're chock full o' nuts!:no:

You know there are many basic things in this world that we use everyday that we don't understand or know all the aspects of how they work. But we do know the end result. And we understand the cause and effect of the item.

It's not so much as they don't believe it's that they don't want to believe.;)

Skeptic-- "So if this so called "heliocentric" model is accurate, why doesn't the rapidly moving earth throw everything off into space? I've never gotten a good answer from the so called "astrophysicists", so I'm guessing they can't answer.

Science-- "Uh, well, the earth's gravitational field creates a localized frame everything within which is relatively "at rest", so...

Skeptic-- "Save your mumbo-jumbo, Einstein, and answer the question. You can't, can you? Ha!"

Science--"What? That is the answer, I don't.....'

Skeptic-- "And how do you account for the fact that your so called "consensus" on "gravity" is a complete mess? Isn't a fact that you don't really know how gravity works? And that many researchers have many differing models? So where do you get off claiming this mysterious force that you don't understand can account for the fact that we are not all flung into space by the spinning earth?"

Science--"Um..... well, without getting to deeply into the particulars of gravitational theory, there is certainly consensus that the earth's gravitational field creates the local conditions that provide the frame of reference wherein everything on the earth's surface is "stationary" relative to the earth, so if you're interested you might look into geodesic motion and....."

Skeptic-- "Thought so. Way to change the goal posts. Really can't afford to be pinned down, can you? You heliocentrists are a real piece of work. Here's a link to FlatEarthTimes.com with a devastating article on all the profound inconsistencies in heliocentric "theory". Also, here are links to 27 more web sites that all link to each other. The controversy is growing."

Science-- "I don't think I want to talk to you anymore. You appear to be mildly retarded."

Skeptic-- "That's right. Resort to personal attacks and then run away. Tells you a lot about the quality of your "science", doesn't it? I win. Again."

[franksargent]

Assuming that's accurate, you're stil wrong: It's not unprecendented. Not at all. It's only unprecedented if you read graphs that go back 1,000 years, which in the relative terms of Earth history is less time that it takes me to post this: <rolleyes>

Actually it's unprecedented over the last 800,000+ years of ice core and atmospheric CO2 data. For instance coming out of the last ice age it took ~6,000 years for CO2 to rise from ~185 ppmv to ~265 ppmv, or on average ~0.013 ppmv/yr. That's using high resolution EPICA ice core data with a mean resolution of ~120 years between data points. At no time during that data set did the CO2 rate of change come within an order of magnitude of the current rate.

Add the Siple Dome and Law Dome data sets to the other ice core data sets (which overlap modern instrumental data with older ice core data sets extremely well), and the evidence is simply overwhelming as to the current CO2 rate of change and it's major cause, fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Compare that with our current rate of ~2+ ppmv/yr! Thats more than two orders of magnitude greater (100X) than natural changes seen from ice core data sets!

[hardeeharhar]

Skeptic-- "So if this so called "heliocentric" model is accurate, why doesn't the rapidly moving earth throw everything off into space? I've never gotten a good answer from the so called "astrophysicists", so I'm guessing they can't answer.

Science-- "Uh, well, the earth's gravitational field creates a localized frame everything within which is relatively "at rest", so...

Skeptic-- "Save your mumbo-jumbo, Einstein, and answer the question. You can't, can you? Ha!"

Science--"What? That is the answer, I don't.....'

Skeptic-- "And how do you account for the fact that your so called "consensus" on "gravity" is a complete mess? Isn't a fact that you don't really know how gravity works? And that many researchers have many differing models? So where do you get off claiming this mysterious force that you don't understand can account for the fact that we are not all flung into space by the spinning earth?"

Science--"Um..... well, without getting to deeply into the particulars of gravitational theory, there is certainly consensus that the earth's gravitational field creates the local conditions that provide the frame of reference wherein everything on the earth's surface is "stationary" relative to the earth, so if you're interested you might look into geodesic motion and....."

Skeptic-- "Thought so. Way to change the goal posts. Really can't afford to be pinned down, can you? You heliocentrists are a real piece of work. Here's a link to FlatEarthTimes.com with a devastating article on all the profound inconsistencies in heliocentric "theory". Also, here are links to 27 more web sites that all link to each other. The controversy is growing."

Science-- "I don't think I want to talk to you anymore. You appear to be mildly retarded."

Skeptic-- "That's right. Resort to personal attacks and then run away. Tells you a lot about the quality of your "science", doesn't it? I win. Again."
This just needs to be quoted.

[addabox]

Actually it's unprecedented over the last 800,000+ years of ice core and atmospheric CO2 data. For instance coming out of the last ice age it took ~6,000 years for CO2 to rise from ~185 ppmv to ~265 ppmv, or on average ~0.013 ppmv/yr. That's using high resolution EPICA ice core data with a mean resolution of ~120 years between data points. At no time during that data set did the CO2 rate of change come within an order of magnitude of the current rate.

Add the Siple Dome and Law Dome data sets to the other ice core data sets (which overlap modern instrumental data with older ice core data sets extremely well), and the evidence is simply overwhelming as to the current CO2 rate of change and it's major cause, fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Compare that with our current rate of ~2+ ppmv/yr! Thats more than two orders of magnitude greater (100X) than natural changes seen from ice core data sets!

How is that a "meaningful answer" to SDW's question? It's just a lot of facts, and facts are just the plaything of hippy/globalist/enviromentalist/science/socialist cabal.

I choose to ignore your post and will certainly ask the same question again as if I had never encountered your information. I win. Again.

[trumptman]

WTF are you talking about?

Fuck seems a common element in all the replies today. Seems like I have touched a nerve among the sheep who desire to submit to their carbon hungry but intention friendly overlords.

Do I really need to dust off the gas equation and prove how insignificant that contribution is wrt burning of fossil fuels to the overall CO2 budget?

Lots of things are insignificant to humans and their actions on this planet. The question was why would someone be against stopping or reducing the rate of pollution. You know one of those nice types of phrases and questions I mentioned in the other thread about what the left does best.

The question is... who is pro-pollution?

The answer of course is no one. However just because I am against pollution does not mean that when you redefine pollution to include something as basic as exhaling that I don't take issue and demand to help craft that definition as well.

If you don't like that. Fuck off. It is my planet too.

do you even need an equation?

in terms of co2, we exhale what we eat. what we eat is renewable -- it is a net zero balance.

in other words, ANYONE who suggests that we shouldn't be worried about non-renewable carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere because WE breath it out is a fucking imbecile of the first order.

No surprise here that certain members fall in that category.

Yes. Your well reasoned faction reply about how anyone who disagrees with you is a "fucking imbecile" shows exactly why you win!:lol:

Are you suggesting that we have somehow added carbon dioxide to this planet that didn't exist here at the beginning? All of it has been here from the beginning. The only question is how much is out and about versus sunk in the water and ground and what factors are controlling that.

[um...

your 97% number is all greenhouse gases including water vapor. the greenhouse gas that is experiencing the most significant change in concentration is CO2 and this is something that is happening as a direct result of human activity. in other words, there is a set percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere where temperature change is historically slow, and there is what is happening now which is unprecedented in human history.


Whenever we view items in a human-centric way, we never end up wrong.:rolleyes:

Even your human history claim is bullshit. We clearly have had much colder and warmer climate than we have now in the past. What I really love though is how you just toss out a statement like that and later on you will bitch that others are making broad claims supported by nothing more than "they said so." No links, no nothing just you cursing and spitting your hate at the monitor.

Or was the whole "fucking imbecile" a term of endearment among your well researched, well reasoned post?

no I am not. In human history, there has never been this concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Period.

Really. You ask for an explanation and then attack the messanger. Fuckwad.

Wow, now when people disagree they are fuckwads.... dude, your reasoning is just impeccable. Also they aren't attacking the messenger Mr. Fuckwad, they are pointing out that the messenger doesn't seem to understand or follow his own message. Sort of like shouting fire and then running INTO the burning building.

Nick

[giant]

Skeptic-- "So if this so called "heliocentric" model is accurate, why doesn't the rapidly moving earth throw everything off into space? I've never gotten a good answer from the so called "astrophysicists", so I'm guessing they can't answer.

Science-- "Uh, well, the earth's gravitational field creates a localized frame everything within which is relatively "at rest", so...

Skeptic-- "Save your mumbo-jumbo, Einstein, and answer the question. You can't, can you? Ha!"

Science--"What? That is the answer, I don't.....'

Skeptic-- "And how do you account for the fact that your so called "consensus" on "gravity" is a complete mess? Isn't a fact that you don't really know how gravity works? And that many researchers have many differing models? So where do you get off claiming this mysterious force that you don't understand can account for the fact that we are not all flung into space by the spinning earth?"

Science--"Um..... well, without getting to deeply into the particulars of gravitational theory, there is certainly consensus that the earth's gravitational field creates the local conditions that provide the frame of reference wherein everything on the earth's surface is "stationary" relative to the earth, so if you're interested you might look into geodesic motion and....."

Skeptic-- "Thought so. Way to change the goal posts. Really can't afford to be pinned down, can you? You heliocentrists are a real piece of work. Here's a link to FlatEarthTimes.com with a devastating article on all the profound inconsistencies in heliocentric "theory". Also, here are links to 27 more web sites that all link to each other. The controversy is growing."

Science-- "I don't think I want to talk to you anymore. You appear to be mildly retarded."

Skeptic-- "That's right. Resort to personal attacks and then run away. Tells you a lot about the quality of your "science", doesn't it? I win. Again."
In just one post you've provided a wonderfully concise summary of most threads in this forum.

[franksargent]

Fuck seems a common element in all the replies today. Seems like I have touched a nerve among the sheep who desire to submit to their carbon hungry but intention friendly overlords.



Lots of things are insignificant to humans and their actions on this planet. The question was why would someone be against stopping or reducing the rate of pollution. You know one of those nice types of phrases and questions I mentioned in the other thread about what the left does best.

The question is... who is pro-pollution?

The answer of course is no one. However just because I am against pollution does not mean that when you redefine pollution to include something as basic as exhaling that I don't take issue and demand to help craft that definition as well.

If you don't like that. Fuck off. It is my planet too.



Yes. Your well reasoned faction reply about how anyone who disagrees with you is a "fucking imbecile" shows exactly why you win!:lol:

Are you suggesting that we have somehow added carbon dioxide to this planet that didn't exist here at the beginning? All of it has been here from the beginning. The only question is how much is out and about versus sunk in the water and ground and what factors are controlling that.

[


Whenever we view items in a human-centric way, we never end up wrong.:rolleyes:

Even your human history claim is bullshit. We clearly have had much colder and warmer climate than we have now in the past. What I really love though is how you just toss out a statement like that and later on you will bitch that others are making broad claims supported by nothing more than "they said so." No links, no nothing just you cursing and spitting your hate at the monitor.

Or was the whole "fucking imbecile" a term of endearment among your well researched, well reasoned post?



Wow, now when people disagree they are fuckwads.... dude, your reasoning is just impeccable. Also they aren't attacking the messenger Mr. Fuckwad, they are pointing out that the messenger doesn't seem to understand or follow his own message. Sort of like shouting fire and then running INTO the burning building.

Nick

hardeeharhar is MOST CORRECT! :D

And, as usual, NICK is MOST INCORRECT! :p

Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center FAQ (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html)

Please don't waste your energy!

Stop polluting this thread with your bitter bile!

In fact, if you really want to help, you and your kind could just stop breathing, than way the rest of have some chance of solving AGW!

[Jubelum]

The comparison between "both sides" here is absolutely ludicrous. You're going to compare the power of fossil fuel industries with guys scrambling for tenure and grants from the NSF? If it were all just a power and money game, why don't the vast majority of scientists simply team up with the big guys with very deep pockets and shill for them?

The government has more money than anyone...duh. They have the power to take from the "very deep pockets." The "very deep pockets" can come and go- the government is forever. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

Dude, sorry, but you're fucking nuts. Your obsession with the socialist mind control satellites just really isn't helpful.

What is the point of this kind of "control"? How does reducing reliance on carbon fuel sources play into the hands of the puppet masters of the Hague? How would developing alternative energy sources bring us closer to One World Tyranny? How in the world are carbon offsets an "effective mechanism of control"? Over what? To what end?

The logic of global warming denialists is always obliged to include this unexamined bit of sophistry-- that because it is demonstrably true that there are very large, very powerful, very well funded vested interests that would prefer not to see money shifted away from carbon based energy systems, it must follow that those that would advocate for such a shift are also very large, very powerful vested interests with lots of money at stake.

Therefore, "science" must somehow be this massively lucrative, powerful enterprise on par with big oil and nation states, or (seeings as that actually is kind of silly on the face of it) must be in cahoots with this nameless, shadowy conspiracy of world government plotters, America resenters and some completely fantastical species of supper luddite modern life hater that wants to see all civilization returned to hunter-gatherer status.

All this freaky invention just because you can't accept that science is what it is and is saying what it is saying.

That's a nice farcical psychological profile and big-worded ad hominem, but sorry, you are wrong. My problem is not with being nice to Mother Earth. Or moving away from the carbon economy. Or whatever. It is people that I have a BIG problem with- the ones that think they have a right to force whatever they think is best on the rest of us, because, as your post demonstrates, they are somehow better or more enlightened than those of us who don't care to have our life decisions dictated by government-empowering people like yourself.

You, more than most here adda, should be able to realize what is going on around you. I expect better quality of thinking from you. Control IS THE GAME. The point of that control is access to resources that are becoming scarce in the coming years, economic stability for the few, and basic megalomaniacal need to control other people. Look at history. It's rhyming. If you cannot see that we are ALL in a net of control that is tightening around us, then I really cannot help you. It disappoints me because you are well read, well spoken, and know what is happening in the world, but you have missed the boat on this one. It is not "helpful" that you refuse to see or object to ever-growing systems of control unless they serve your ideological needs. How tidy.

All those credits, controls, etc, are just a way to control usage of resources and damage some nations while letting others, like China, go free. These are ECONOMIC policies, not environmental. The Green aspect is just the PR carrier for the real goal.

GW science is inconclusive, a lot of it is shit, and the man-made part is FAR from conclusive.
Just saying "the world is getting warmer" is now spun to "we are doing it"- we are in a warming period right now just like we have been between every ice age for millions of years.

SDW has this right. It just seems to me that if you look at all the "solutions" to the hysteria of GW, you'll see the same old tired central-planning statist bullshit that failed time and again during the 20th Century. Environmentalism is the new home for top-down global socialism. That's a fact. Just look at who is pushing all this GW hysteria on us, and realize that they all have the same goals, which are left-wing global socialist in nature. And BTW, we take and took MUCH BETTER care of the planet than the eastern bloc, the USSR, and China. Communism is bad for the planet. Capitalism can be good for nature as well as people. ;)

[audiopollution]

Is 'wack-a-doo' some new right-wing talking point that has slipped into the lexicon over the past week?

[addabox]

You, more than most here adda, should be able to realize what is going on around you. I expect better quality of thinking from you. Control IS THE GAME. The point of that control is access to resources that are becoming scarce in the coming years, economic stability for the few, and basic megalomaniacal need to control other people. Look at history. It's rhyming. If you cannot see that we are ALL in a net of control that is tightening around us, then I really cannot help you. It disappoints me because you are well read, well spoken, and know what is happening in the world, but you have missed the boat on this one. It is not "helpful" that you refuse to see or object to ever-growing systems of control unless they serve your ideological needs. How tidy.

All those credits, controls, etc, are just a way to control usage of resources and damage some nations while letting others, like China, go free. These are ECONOMIC policies, not environmental. The Green aspect is just the PR carrier for the real goal.

GW science is inconclusive, a lot of it is shit, and the man-made part is FAR from conclusive.
Just saying "the world is getting warmer" is now spun to "we are doing it"- we are in a warming period right now just like we have been between every ice age for millions of years.

SDW has this right. It just seems to me that if you look at all the "solutions" to the hysteria of GW, you'll see the same old tired central-planning statist bullshit that failed time and again during the 20th Century. Environmentalism is the new home for top-down global socialism. That's a fact. Just look at who is pushing all this GW hysteria on us, and realize that they all have the same goals, which are left-wing global socialist in nature. And BTW, we take and took MUCH BETTER care of the planet than the eastern bloc, the USSR, and China. Communism is bad for the planet. Capitalism can be good for nature as well as people. ;)

My theory here is that a man who introduced himself as a "socialist" touched your boy parts when you were but a lad, and the experience scarred you very deeply.

[Jubelum]

My theory here is that a man who introduced himself as a "socialist" touched your boy parts when you were but a lad, and the experience scarred you very deeply.

You are sick. And you need to be careful with throwing around things like that. If you disagree with me fine, but there is no need to make light of a serious topic like that. At least we know who you are deep down.

Its disturbing that you think child molestation is worthy of a joke.

[iPoster]

My theory here is that a man who introduced himself as a "socialist" touched your boy parts when you were but a lad, and the experience scarred you very deeply.

:no: .....

[dmz]

My theory here is that a man who introduced himself as a "socialist" touched your boy parts when you were but a lad, and the experience scarred you very deeply.
Good Lord, addabox, when you run out of ideas, you really run out of ideas.

What dark little corner of your psyche did that come from?

[franksargent]

You are sick. And you need to be careful with throwing around things like that. If you disagree with me fine, but there is no need to make light of a serious topic like that. At least we know who you are deep down.

Yes, AGW is a very serious topic, there is no need to make light of a serious topic like that! :D

Its disturbing that you think child molestation is worthy of a joke.

No, I think addabox intent was to illustrate that your position was a joke, that could only be answered in kind! :\

Signed,
A Conspirator for Global Domination

[midwinter]

Dear god.

[BRussell]

It was a libertarian who molested me.

[midwinter]

It was a libertarian who molested me.

something something no age of consent for libertarians something something.

[addabox]

It's true; I hail from the aggressively godless Bay Area, which is more or less a fully owned subsidiary of NAMBLA.

It is a relief, however, to finally come out as a monster. You're only as sick as your secrets.

[dmz]

***EDITED FOR CLARITY***
***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE****
It's true; I hail from the aggressively godless Bay Area, otheriwse know as NAMBLA.

I continue to be quite put out over your comment.

[dmz]

I bet you put out.

Oh baby.
You, me, and Gentleman Jack, on AI, in front of everybody? :wow:




Edit: My wife walked up behind me just as I posted that, I'm in sooooo much trouble.

[midwinter]

You, me, and Gentleman Jack, on AI, in front of everybody? :wow:




Edit: My wife walked up behind me just as I posted that, I'm in sooooo much trouble.

Just tell her that there's even less scientific consensus about how language works than there is about global warming, so know one knows what you actually said.

[dmz]

Just tell her that there's even less scientific consensus about how language works than there is about global warming, so know one knows what you actually said.
...and tweak female intuition? You're a braver man than me.

[midwinter]

...and tweak female intuition? You're a braver man than me.

I'm sorry, since there is not 100% consensus on how language works, I can't respond to you.

[dmz]

I'm sorry, since there is not 100% consensus on how language works, I can't respond to you.
Yes, but you still have to live with your wife in the meantime. She'll insist.

[midwinter]

Yes, but you still have to live with your wife in the meantime. She'll insist.

lalalalala words on screen but can't be certain what they mean.

[dmz]

lalalalala words on screen but can't be certain what they mean.

When momma aint happy...

[midwinter]

When momma aint happy...

Oh, god. A dependent clause all by itself. A variant of "mother" (so vague...does it mean my mother? my wife? my significant female other?) A missing apostrophe in "ain't." And a mis-used ellipsis.

Add to that the simple fact that we're not sure how language works (what you mean + what words you choose to signify that meaning + my interpretation of those words + my interpretation of your meaning), and I just can't know what you mean.

Ergo, global warming isn't true and intelligent design is totally reasonable.

[hardeeharhar]

finally the chains of language were released and there was much rejoicing through the land (rejoice). and lo upon thee horison the languij did chanje. soon the peapl wur unaybl two communikate wyth eech othur, four whurds had noe undurstood meeneeng and noe aksepted spelleeng. and soon thee hoelie leedurs dyd proeclaym thys storie a hoelee wun and thee behst skribes wur kalled to reekord thee storie and soe wus born thee storie of baabil-on.

[addabox]

Her mayhem brittle portent ala camphor? Far, I tern, or baste, indicate, under and chew. Dingo, dingo!

Prop wilder: cob up remainder onto porcelain happenstance, left is tatter so piecemeal bolt.

[Jubelum]

Signed, A Conspirator for Global Domination

Fine.

http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e269/zaidenwinters/th_airplane7a.jpg

Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help! ...


Off to the cattle cars with you. There really is nothing all that funny about the road we are going down, but, hey... believe what you want.

[addabox]

Fine.

http://s41.photobucket.com/albums/e269/zaidenwinters/th_airplane7a.jpg

Chump don' want no help, chump don't GET da' help! ...


Off to the cattle cars with you. There really is nothing all that funny about the road we are going down, but, hey... believe what you want.

"Off to the cattle cars"? Tell me you're not being flippant about the holocaust? This explains the genocidal tone of your posts, etc. etc.

Maybe you need to brush up on your history (http://www.aish.com/holocaust/overview/The_Trains.asp).

[Jubelum]

Tell me you're not being flippant about the holocaust?


First of all, fuck you, you condescending ass. Now that we have that out of the way...

I'm not being flippant at all. Not when Ted Turner talks about us being "bottom feeders."

Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon Magazine said, “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” and is using his purported $1Billion “gift” to the UN to further global depopulation programs.


Read NSSM 200. Depopulation is part of the plan. Since 74. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200)

Why were the Jews sent off and Europe taken over? Yep, resources. And what are all future wars going to be about? Resources.

[BR]

Even if I were to agree that it is necessary, which I don't, depopulation can occur over time through people willingly having fewer children. No one is suggesting gas chambers, jackass.

[addabox]

First of all, fuck you, you condescending ass. Now that we have that out of the way...

I'm not being flippant at all. Not when Ted Turner talks about us being "bottom feeders."



Read NSSM 200. Depopulation is part of the plan. Since 74. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200)

Why were the Jews sent off and Europe taken over? Yep, resources. And what are all future wars going to be about? Resources.

OK, you need to back the fuck off, right now. You've obviously got your panties in a wad, but get over it.

Now: where the fuck do you get off playing at moral outrage at a joke when you turn around and in all seriousness equate Ted Turner's remarks about voluntary population growth with the holocaust, pretty much apropos of nothing?

You want to put 6 million enslaved, tortured and murdered against improved access to birth control, and the choice to have fewer children? And for what? To make Ted Turner the Anti-Christ? And this relates to global warming how? They're all in it together?

This is the problem with your kind of extremist, totalizing philosophy-- everything gets jammed out to the limits, turned up to 11, till there's no difference between population control and genocide, no difference between controlling carbon emission and totalitarianism, no difference between a progressive tax system and wholesale state ownership of private property.

Ah, fuck it, I'm tired of your prattle. Onto the ignore list you go.

[Jubelum]

Onto the ignore list you go.

Excellent! :D

[tonton]

Even if I were to agree that it is necessary, which I don't, depopulation can occur over time through people willingly having fewer children. No one is suggesting gas chambers, jackass.

This needs to be stressed more.

We can GREATLY reduce the population growth rate over time by discouraging the Catholic Church from spreading extremely harmful population policy.

No genocide necessary. Just stop having so many kids.

[dmz]

Oh, god. A dependent clause all by itself. A variant of "mother" (so vague...does it mean my mother? my wife? my significant female other?) A missing apostrophe in "ain't." And a mis-used ellipsis.

Add to that the simple fact that we're not sure how language works (what you mean + what words you choose to signify that meaning + my interpretation of those words + my interpretation of your meaning), and I just can't know what you mean.

Ergo, global warming isn't true and intelligent design is totally reasonable.
Dude -- excellent -- we like totally share a syntactical norms!

But, you do hail from Utah, you may not be familiar with that Southern Americanism. I realize, in this situation, that it's especially problematic when only its stem is used in conversation. Since Utah is a critical part of your isolation from the rich cultural heritage of the American South, I should have tried to build a cultural bridge, used the entire phrase, and hope that even in your translation of that phrase, you could find some cultural purchase.

And I hold myself responsible for not using momma in the plural form.

[@_@ Artman]

:lol:
So how many pictures do you have? Or do you have just an endless supply from some web page somewhere?:lol:

That one is so old school. Everyone uses it. For the sake of this subject it fits.

STFU. Whether you believe it or not, do something to conserve energy and decrease pollution. It can save you money in the long run and the latter will hopefully make a dent in the course we are taking towards destruction of our world. Make an example. Hopefully the ignorant dullards will follow suit. But all this...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/yesno.gif

Reminds me of this...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/macpcio6.gif

Turns into this...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/internet_slap_2.gif

Which eventually leads to this...

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/explhead.gif

Goodbye...:smokey:

[addabox]

Dude -- excellent -- we like totally share a syntactical norms!

But, you do hail from Utah, you may not be familiar with that Southern Americanism. I realize, in this situation, that it's especially problematic when only its stem is used in conversation. Since Utah is a critical part of your isolation from the rich cultural heritage of the American South, I should have tried to build a cultural bridge, used the entire phrase, and hope that even in your translation of that phrase, you could find some cultural purchase.

And I hold myself responsible for not using momma in the plural form.

Good heavens, DMZ, you've been chatting with Mid long enough that he is an authentic child of the south, via the garden spot that is Mississippi. He can momma you up one side and down the other, should be he be so inclined (pictures up one side and down the other inclination). Or something.

[dmz]

Good heavens, DMZ, you've been chatting with Mid long enough that he is an authentic child of the south, via the garden spot that is Mississippi. He can momma you up one side and down the other, should be he be so inclined (pictures up one side and down the other inclination). Or something.
Are you saying that midwinter had -- merged -- gone over to the other side -- left his homeland to be part of some Mormon Jesuitesque indoctrination, that failed miserably, that left him the shell of the Southerner he once was, a fractured conciseness that had lost his roots, that he washed up on campus, was taken in by the political science department, nursed back to health on a diet of Kenyes, Freud, and Molly Ivins, but then when poked with just the right argumentative sally, suddenly shrugged off all his memes in a horrible, incongruous internet exchange?

Say it isn't so!!

[addabox]

Are you saying that midwinter had -- merged -- gone over to the other side -- left his homeland to be part of some Mormon Jesuit indoctrination, that failed miserably, that left him the shell of the Southerner he once was, a fractured conciseness that had lost his roots, that he washed up on campus, was taken in by the political science department, nursed back to health on a diet of Kenyes, Freud, and Molly Ivins, but then when poked with just the right artgumentative sally, suddenly shrugged off all his memes in a horrible ingruous internet exchange?

Say it isn't so!!

Jeeze, I don't think I can even say that, much less it isn't so...maybe if you hum a few bars ;)

But: yep. I believe his current status is something like Jeff Goldblum in the final moments of The Fly, a hideous, deformed creature of parts, dragging himself across the floor with a hushpuppy in one hand and tenure track in the other, begging us to end his misery.

Wait, except that last bit. So: a hideous, deformed creature of parts, dragging himself across the floor with a hushpuppy in one hand and tenure track in the other, doing home improvement projects.

Which, I think you'll agree, is far more terrifying.

[dmz]

Jeeze, I don't think I can even say that, much less it isn't so...maybe if you hum a few bars ;)

But: yep. I believe his current status is something like Jeff Goldblum in the final moments of The Fly, a hideous, deformed creature of parts, dragging himself across the floor with a hushpuppy in one hand and tenure track in the other, begging us to end his misery.

Wait, except that last bit. So: a hideous, deformed creature of parts, dragging himself across the floor with a hushpuppy in one hand and tenure track in the other, doing home improvement projects.

Which, I think you'll agree, is far more terrifying.

We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

[@_@ Artman]

I'm not going to be an armchair scientist, I'm just going to offer this new study by the US National Academy of Sciences...


Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions' (http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.ece)
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 03 June 2007

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

News of the studies - which are bound to lead to calls for even tougher anti-pollution measures than have yet been contemplated - comes as the leaders of the world's most powerful nations prepare for the most crucial meeting yet on tackling climate change.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

...and of the waste and pollution right under our noses...

The Ooze (http://nymag.com/news/features/32865/)
Ten million gallons of toxic gunk trapped in the Brooklyn aquifer is starting to creep toward the surface. How scary is that?
By Daphne Eviatar

What Seggos discovered—or rediscovered—wasn’t an oil spill, exactly. Rather, it was a mix of gasoline, solvents, and associated poisons bubbling up from the very ground: a thin dribble that betrays the presence of a supertanker’s worth of the stuff submerged in the age-old geology of Greenpoint. It’s actually more than a century’s worth of spills, leaks, and waste dumped by oil companies that has pooled into a vast underground lake, more than 55 acres wide and up to 25 feet thick. First discovered by the U.S. Coast Guard in 1978, the Greenpoint spill has been estimated at anywhere between 17 million and 30 million gallons—three times more oil than the Exxon Valdez spill. That makes it the largest known oil spill in American history.

Toxic waste litters desert Indian reservation (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dump2jun02,0,7610180.story)

Rampant dumping in Thermal has gone on for years, and pupils breathe tainted air. Government can't yet stamp it out.

Still, the site is small compared with other illegal dumps on the reservation.

A few miles away, looming up from the desert floor is a plateau 40 feet high, 300 feet wide and nearly 1,000 feet long, composed almost entirely of human excrement. It's been dubbed Mt. San Diego because of where the sewage originated.

A mile or so from that is the towering Lawson dump, the biggest in California. The 40-acre site has mountains of debris 50 feet high and a million tons of buried waste. Subterranean fires smolder endlessly, occasionally flaring up through cracks. Since a federal judge shut it down last year, there have been more than 20 fires injuring nine firefighters.

"It's the largest dump I have seen in my career, and I have been doing this since 1986," said Scott Walker of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. "Nothing else compares."

Stop trying to prove which one of you is smarter than the other, or the blame game. Do something that fits with your perspective.

[SDW2001]

Specific implementations of the Kyoto Accords do not equal the case for global warming. Treaties are negotiable. Scientific evidence is not.

OK, but I'm not sure why you point that out. It's the treaties that I was addressing.



How do you know that? Clearly, the age of cheap, plentiful oil is at an end. The economies that do the best job of making the transition to post carbon energy infrastructure will be in the best position to thrive in the 21st century. New research, new industries, new delivery systems, all create jobs and wealth.

First, the age of cheap oil is only over because there are those that wish it to be. Oil is plentiful and there is more than enough spare production capacity. We have the oil companies, OPEC and the Left all working together without knowing it. All three want high oil prices. It's not that oil is becoming less plentiful or that we can't meet demand. We just won't

And it will harm the US economy because we are the world's largest economy and so dependent on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, nations that are "developing" will be exempted, and smaller nations that use less can be more nimble in their changeover.



Compared to what? And to the extent that that is true, why is that bad, to a conservative? If the notion is that "being a money maker" is a sure sign of dubious motivation, what are we to make of big oil?

If the fact that there is money changing hands makes you suspicious of the claims of global warming, you must be completely insulted by the claims of big oil and its shills. No? Huh.

I'm simply saying there is plenty of financial motivation involved. Others have claimed, well, otherwise. I'm saying it's a business like anything else.


Really? Hippies are in charge of science? Is there no end to their mischief and cunning?




How the damn hippies in your head do or do not make use of global warming as a catch-all principle has no bearing on the science. If the science indicates that we are on a bad path that can be changed with better policy, what do you care if somebody is also mentioning that decreasing carbon emission also has the benefit of decreasing pollution and acid rain?

You seem to be saying that since the response to global warming may take a form that would be harmonious with the agenda of people you have a visceral, emotional dislike for, any response to global warming must be rejected. Or the hippies win. Which you find intolerable.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm saying that there are coalition of environmentalist wackos that have always existed. They can use GW as their uber-issue, whether or not it's actually proven science. If it was global cooling, they'd be using that too. It's their holy grail of issues.



But this is the pattern of the kind of things "skeptics", if you prefer, are constantly citing as evidence for their case. Every damn time. The same "but what about water vapor!!!???" and "volcanoes!!!!" and "in the seventies they were saying....!!!!".

Just do a little research outside of the winger circle jerk, for the love of God. The same dozen or so "gotchas", endlessly presented, endlessly, conclusively refuted, then here they are again, BUT WHAT ABOUT VOLCANOES MR. GLOBAL WARMING, WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, HUH??? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!! CASE CLOSED!!! LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!

I look at shit like that, and as a "person who used his noodle" I have to think: "these people are totally full of shit. If they have to rely on the ignorance of their supporters to spam the discourse with trivially mistaken caveats, how serious can the they be? And how stupid do they think I am?"



The points are not conclusively refuted at all. A response from a dyed in the wool believer is offered/attempted, and he (like you) run around screaming "fucking denier! I told you these people were stupid as dung!"

And let me ask you: What motivation do I personally have (for example) to be skeptical, to be a "denier?" Do you really think it's just a left/right issue and that I decided to "suit up" with my red jersey on? I'm basing my opinions on the facts I see and asking questions accordingly. I haven't gotten to the point where I believe GW is real based on everything I've seen. What I have seen is hysteria. A rush to judgment. And, let's not forget a healthy dose of "celebripocrisy" for good measure. I see the same people screaming that folks like me are putting out "false" arguments rushing out and proclaiming the debate over. I ask again...why is that needed?


[quote]Because when "someone speaks out" by saying a lot of patently untrue things that a few minutes research would reveal to be untrue they deserved to be mocked?

Because the simple minded falsehoods that are being spread are being spread with the aggressive support of deep pocket energy industries? As in a well financed propaganda campaign designed to cast doubt in the average (read, scientifically unsophisticated) person's mind about the causes and likely outcomes of global warming?

I see. So every single global warming skeptic to date has been full of shit. I see. Tell ya what...I'll just let you think that over.

And really...propraganda campaign? :lol: Three Words: An Inconvenient Truth. How's that for "well-financed" propaganda campaign. The movie is loaded with half-truths and inaccuracies, and has even been required at high schools and colleges with no opposing viewpoint presented. If that doesn't meet the very definition of propaganda, I don't know what does.


And there, in a nutshell, is why people who talk like you deserve to be mocked. You, and others, have had those "questions" responded to over and over and over again. And not with a few graphs by people who subsequently "run away", but substantively, at length, in lucid prose that takes great pains to explain why historical climate change doesn't change the significance, proximate causes or reasonable responses to the current climate forcing, or why your tired old "3% can't matter that much" is simply an ignorant misunderstanding.

Since you have already, repeatedly, gotten "decent answers to your questions", I think you might be reasonably called "willfully ignorant". What drives you to close your mind to the abundant evidence, I cannot say.

Then perhaps you'd be willing, in your infinite wisdom, to elaborate. Please, great adda, clear up my "ignorant misunderstanding." Really, I'm waiting.

[@_@ Artman]

Then perhaps you'd be willing, in your infinite wisdom, to elaborate. Please, great adda, clear up my "ignorant misunderstanding." Really, I'm waiting.

Ok. I'll contribute. Start here... (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/)

[addabox]

Then perhaps you'd be willing, in your infinite wisdom, to elaborate. Please, great adda, clear up my "ignorant misunderstanding." Really, I'm waiting.

Sure, but I'm not sure how much clearing up is in the cards. It's not like they've being keeping this stuff a secret.

So, to take your questions one at a time:

The issue here is that there are intelligent people out there who have questions that the GW "blind accepters" cannot answer. One of these is the point I've raised about our climate changing over millions of years, far more than it has now.

You can look here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/23557/437), here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/215043/37), and here (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hockeystickFAQ.html).

Short answer: the sharp uptick in global temperatures coinciding with the industrial revolution is undeniable and almost no one questions the agency of human activity.

While there were certainly climate variations in the past, they took place over tens of thousands of years, not decades, and in the case of the oft cited Holocene warming period we understand the mechanisms, which have no relationship to what is happening now.

More generally, the intent of this kind of caveat seems to be to suggest that climate fluctuates all the time for its own reasons that are mysterious so it is unwise to pin the latest fluctuation on CO2. That would make sense if a) the current ramp up didn't appear nearly unprecedented in its speed, and b) we didn't have lots and lots of evidence of the role of CO2 in climate forcing and know without a doubt that we have put lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere at just the time that the current ramp-up is taking place.

Which brings us to:

Another is the fact that humans contribute only 3% of all greenhouse gases to the atmosphere....why would reducing them help, when 97% of them remain unchanged?

I'm guessing you're including water vapor as a green house gas to get that "3% of greenhouse gasses" figure, so first look here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) and here. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90)

Short answer: water vapor is included in all the climate models (although for some reason "what about water vapor" remains a popular recreational caveat), and water vapor (for reasons explained at the link) accounts for feedback, rather than forcing effects.

That is, water vapor itself, while an important greenhouse gas, doesn't drive climate change, but once things start warming up it amplifies climate change via feedback effects. In other words, water vapor varies as a function of temperature, not the other way around. Water vapor is also a quick responder-- if it starts to cool off, atmospheric water vapor is precipitated out in the form of rain.

Carbon dioxide, which is a forcing gas, has seen rapid increases since the onset of the industrial revolution, as discussed here. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/235212/60) It also stays in the atmosphere for centuries.

OK? So right away that tiny fraction of "what we contribute" is highly misleading and dependent on some basic miscomprehension, which is the kind of thing I've been talking about.

Carbon dioxide levels have gone up something like 30% since the middle of the 19th century, so that's the number you should be looking at. Swamping out that fact with figures that include water vapor is like complaining that increasing metal concentrations in the body couldn't possibly be harmful because they are naturally occurring and make up a vanishingly slight percentage of a person's biomass, compared to say, well, water, and that water accounts for the vast majority of circulatory behavior.

No one has provided decent answers to these questions. Those that try post graphs of atmospheric CO2 levels and argue for a few posts, then run away and lob the "denier" label. Until I get some decent answers to these questions, I won't be convinced. Call me what you will.

As I say, I have a sneaking suspicion you won't find these links to be "decent answers". What usually happens now is we switch to the next level of the endlessly nested russian dolls of "skepticism"-- that the evidence for prior climate fluctuations is flimsy (the hockey stick is broken!) or "we don't really understand the mechanisms for water vapor's effect on climate" or "there's no proof that CO2 has much effect on global warming" or "there's no proof that the current rise in CO2 is human driven".

All of which can be refuted, but that just leads to the next doll down, and eventually you get to "I don't think science knows what it's talking about, it's all just a bunch of herd mentality mumbo-jumbo to get grants and hurt America and something something".

Which is why the point by point thing is generally futile, since that's just misdirection busy work. We're not really arguing science, here, are we?

[franksargent]

I'm guessing you're including water vapor as a green house gas to get that "3% of greenhouse gasses" figure, so first look here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) and here. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90)

Short answer: water vapor is included in all the climate models (although for some reason "what about water vapor" remains a popular recreational caveat), and water vapor (for reasons explained at the link) accounts for feedback, rather than forcing effects.

That is, water vapor itself, while an important greenhouse gas, doesn't drive climate change, but once things start warming up it amplifies climate change via feedback effects. In other words, water vapor varies as a function of temperature, not the other way around. Water vapor is also a quick responder-- if it starts to cool off, atmospheric water vapor is precipitated out in the form of rain.

Carbon dioxide, which is a forcing gas, has seen rapid increases since the onset of the industrial revolution, as discussed here. (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/235212/60) It also stays in the atmosphere for centuries.

OK? So right away that tiny fraction of "what we contribute" is highly misleading and dependent on some basic miscomprehension, which is the kind of thing I've been talking about.

Carbon dioxide levels have gone up something like 30% since the middle of the 19th century, so that's the number you should be looking at. Swamping out that fact with figures that include water vapor is like complaining that increasing metal concentrations in the body couldn't possibly be harmful because they are naturally occurring and make up a vanishingly slight percentage of a person's biomass, compared to say, well, water, and that water accounts for the vast majority of circulatory behavior.



As I say, I have a sneaking suspicion you won't find these links to be "decent answers". What usually happens now is we switch to the next level of the endlessly nested russian dolls of "skepticism"-- that the evidence for prior climate fluctuations is flimsy (the hockey stick is broken!) or "we don't really understand the mechanisms for water vapor's effect on climate" or "there's no proof that CO2 has much effect on global warming" or "there's no proof that the current rise in CO2 is human driven".

I think SDW is referring to total CO2 fluxes between the biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans. So in terms of absolute fluxes, human CO2 fluxes are only a few percent.

However in terms of net CO2 fluxes, our contribution is not insignificant.

So that prior to pre-industrial times, the net CO2 flux was approximately zero, major swings have occurred, between glacial and interglacial peaks (the long troughs and relatively short chests (which we are currently seeing)).

However, since industrialization, the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, has exceeded the Earth's natural mechanisms for removing these additional CO2 emissions, by 30% to 50% (i. e. about 1/3 to 1/2 of what we burn is staying in the atmosphere, causing the current unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 rates (ppmv/yr)).


A couple of other CO2 facts are also useful;

1) Each ton of fossil fuel burned produces from 2-4 tons of CO2 (depending on the fossil fuel type).

2) What took Earth's geology several hundred millions of years to convert from sunlight to carbon deposits (e. g. fossil fuels), humankind may burn up in several hundred years. That's roughly six orders of magnitude (1,000,000 times) faster that they were deposited.

[SDW2001]

adda:

You can look here , here, and here.

Short answer: the sharp uptick in global temperatures coinciding with the industrial revolution is undeniable and almost no one questions the agency of human activity.

While there were certainly climate variations in the past, they took place over tens of thousands of years, not decades, and in the case of the oft cited Holocene warming period we understand the mechanisms, which have no relationship to what is happening now.

More generally, the intent of this kind of caveat seems to be to suggest that climate fluctuates all the time for its own reasons that are mysterious so it is unwise to pin the latest fluctuation on CO2. That would make sense if a) the current ramp up didn't appear nearly unprecedented in its speed, and b) we didn't have lots and lots of evidence of the role of CO2 in climate forcing and know without a doubt that we have put lots and lots of CO2 into the atmosphere at just the time that the current ramp-up is taking place.


First, thank you for actually making an attempt to answer the questions I posed. That is allI was asking for.

Now, let's look at your first section: While C02 and temperature are higher, temperature is only slightly higher over the last 150 years...a maximum of .8 degrees on average. Of course, that figure itself is called into question because of the accuracy of real measurement going back any period of time beyond 50 years, and the accuracy of ice core sampling.

In other words, I'm not disputing C02 is high and rising. I am disputing that it's proven CO2 has caused this minor warming. There are scientists who have stated that it may be the warming actually causing the C02 rise, after all. Secondly, man is not the primary source of C02.

I'm guessing you're including water vapor as a green house gas to get that "3% of greenhouse gasses" figure, so first look here and here.

Short answer: water vapor is included in all the climate models (although for some reason "what about water vapor" remains a popular recreational caveat), and water vapor (for reasons explained at the link) accounts for feedback, rather than forcing effects.

That is, water vapor itself, while an important greenhouse gas, doesn't drive climate change, but once things start warming up it amplifies climate change via feedback effects. In other words, water vapor varies as a function of temperature, not the other way around. Water vapor is also a quick responder-- if it starts to cool off, atmospheric water vapor is precipitated out in the form of rain.

Carbon dioxide, which is a forcing gas, has seen rapid increases since the onset of the industrial revolution, as discussed here. It also stays in the atmosphere for centuries.

OK? So right away that tiny fraction of "what we contribute" is highly misleading and dependent on some basic miscomprehension, which is the kind of thing I've been talking about.

Carbon dioxide levels have gone up something like 30% since the middle of the 19th century, so that's the number you should be looking at. Swamping out that fact with figures that include water vapor is like complaining that increasing metal concentrations in the body couldn't possibly be harmful because they are naturally occurring and make up a vanishingly slight percentage of a person's biomass, compared to say, well, water, and that water accounts for the vast majority of circulatory behavior.


I was talking about all greenhouse gases, it's true. However, we are also not the primary contributor of CO2 or other greenhouse gases. Natural sources acount for far more than man:

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/7783/greenhousexz5.png (http://imageshack.us)

As I say, I have a sneaking suspicion you won't find these links to be "decent answers". What usually happens now is we switch to the next level of the endlessly nested russian dolls of "skepticism"-- that the evidence for prior climate fluctuations is flimsy (the hockey stick is broken!) or "we don't really understand the mechanisms for water vapor's effect on climate" or "there's no proof that CO2 has much effect on global warming" or "there's no proof that the current rise in CO2 is human driven".

All of which can be refuted, but that just leads to the next doll down, and eventually you get to "I don't think science knows what it's talking about, it's all just a bunch of herd mentality mumbo-jumbo to get grants and hurt America and something something".

Which is why the point by point thing is generally futile, since that's just misdirection busy work. We're not really arguing sci

Obviously I've made some of those same points. So why not answer them? We aren't the primary contributors to greenhouse gases, with or without water vapor. Temperature measurements from the distant past are of questionable accuracy when we talk about tenths of one degree. CO2 levels and concurrent (and minor) warming trends don't mean that the CO2 is what's causing the warming.

It's not that I don't find your sources credible or that I even question most of the data, other than distant past temperature measurement accuracy to the level required for the discussion. I'm also not making the argument that "science doesn't know what it's talking about." I'm saying that legit scientific debate on the topic is not allowed, first in the scientific community and now in the masses as well.

Of course, I haven't begun to take issue with the entire concept of "global average temperature" as several scientists have done. The entire concept may be faulty in itself. It's also been proven recently that past temp measurements taken on land have been subject to the Urban Heat Island Effect, thereby making the "warming" seem more pronounced than it actually was/is.

More later, I'm sure.

[hardeeharhar]

a few things sdw2001...

0.8 F is an average. As an average it is not minor nor insignificant, and as an average it is not representative of the inhomogeneity of temperature rises eg in the arctic versus equatorial climates. You have arbitrarily decided that 0.8 F is a minor change in average temperature. To use language you find convincing: there are real economic effects of these temperature changes -- the most recent i have encountered is the reduction in the length of maple syrup growing season -- these things MATTER.

To suggest that people cannot have possibly measured temperature accurately 50 years ago (which would have been 1957 for those counting) is laughable. We have had ACCURATE daily temperature readings from major world wide cities for at least 150 years.

By your own chart DIRECT man made additions account for roughly 15% of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The natural additions are due to increased temperature forcing on ground sources of carbon. In other words, the two additional sources man and natural aren't so easily separated since the temperature increase due to one (man) can cause an increase in the rate of the other (natural). In virtually all of the models the effects snowball...

[FormerLurker]

By your own chart DIRECT man made additions account for roughly 15% of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The natural additions are due to increased temperature forcing on ground sources of carbon. In other words, the two additional sources man and natural aren't so easily separated since the temperature increase due to one (man) can cause an increase in the rate of the other (natural). In virtually all of the models the effects snowball...

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Feedbacks

[franksargent]

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/7783/greenhousexz5.png

The source is from a website run by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb;

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

The Reference to the DOE is misleading, as there is no breakdown there wrt "man-made" versus "natural" CO2 emissions. Also reference (1) also cites an additional reference to the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/climate.html), but conveniently that "data set is "(data now available only to "members")." So that we are not able to validate their breakdown between "man-made" and "natural" CO2 emissions. This is a blog, it is not peer reviewed climate science!

Also wrt the Hieb's website;

Don't read the Heib's. The cite you point me too with such enthusiasm is run by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb.

Monte Hieb has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. I hope you understand that the coal mining industry is not a reliable source for debate on climate change. Clearly, Monte Hieb is not a climate scientist (though he seems to be an enthusiastic amateur fossil-hound with a really nice web site on W VA fossils.

Here is Monte Hieb on water vapor. Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System (http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

Here are real scientists on water vapor. Water vapour: feedback or forcing? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) (that tip to Felix Salmon at RGE Monitor)

Look, I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm seriously concerned that you and so many other otherwise well informed folk can be led astray on such an important matter when the stakes are so high.

Please read real science in peer reviewed journals. There is too much at stake.

Here is a more accurace take on CO2 emissions from climate scientists;

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

So of that 500 Billion metric tons of of CO2 emissions 320 Billion metric tons (from CDIAC website 1751 thru 2005 inclusive) are from burning fossil fuels (and cement production) while the other 180 Billion metric tons are from changing land use patterns (forests for farmland and human habitation).

So what has been the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (all numbers in ppmv)?

(380-280)/(500-280) = 45% NOT 15% has remained in the atmosphere to date. Of course (380-280)/(380-280) = 100% due to human activities!

:D

[lunocrat]

Any way you pass your wind on this it will still come out as, "There's gold in that there carbon trading!"

[franksargent]

a few things sdw2001...

0.8 F is an average. As an average it is not minor nor insignificant, and as an average it is not representative of the inhomogeneity of temperature rises eg in the arctic versus equatorial climates. You have arbitrarily decided that 0.8 F is a minor change in average temperature. To use language you find convincing: there are real economic effects of these temperature changes -- the most recent i have encountered is the reduction in the length of maple syrup growing season -- these things MATTER.

To suggest that people cannot have possibly measured temperature accurately 50 years ago (which would have been 1957 for those counting) is laughable. We have had ACCURATE daily temperature readings from major world wide cities for at least 150 years.

By your own chart DIRECT man made additions account for roughly 15% of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The natural additions are due to increased temperature forcing on ground sources of carbon. In other words, the two additional sources man and natural aren't so easily separated since the temperature increase due to one (man) can cause an increase in the rate of the other (natural). In virtually all of the models the effects snowball...

That is very true, it is an average. Plot temperature chances versus latitude, and you'll see that the equatorial ranges have changed much less (< 0.8 degrees), while regions near the poles have changed much more dramatically (> 0.8 degrees), particularly in the Arctic where there is no permanent land mass at the North Pole.

[franksargent]

Anyway you pass your wind on this it will still come out as, "There's gold in that there carbon trading!"

Consider that at current prices 330 gallons of gasoline (1 short ton = 2000 lbs) costs ~ $1,000 US dollars and produces ~ 3 short tons of CO2 emissions.

Now go to one of those carbon offset websites and pay what, ~$10/ton of your CO2 emissions.

Woo Hoo!

So that's ~97% to the fossil fuel club and ~3% to "so called" CO2 neutral energy alternatives. Once you subtract the middleman take(s), you're probably down to 1-2%. And once you consider that those making the changes may have done so regardless :no: ;

Another Inconvenient Truth (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_13/b4027057.htm)

[addabox]

Anyway you pass your wind on this it will still come out as, "There's gold in that there carbon trading!"

edit-- franksargent beat me to it

[Flounder]

the most recent i have encountered is the reduction in the length of maple syrup growing season

Not to nit pick but one does not grow maple syrup :lol:

[midwinter]

Not to nit pick (as someone who's involved in tapping trees for personal use the larger point about screwing up maple syrup season is anectodatly correct to me) but one does not grow maple syrup :lol:

Gah! Clearly you don't know anything about industrial maple syrup farming! ;)

[Gilsch]

I just farted.

[FormerLurker]

I just farted.Think Globally - Fart Locally

[lunocrat]

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency. Major reductions in impact could be achieved at reasonable cost.

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

[hardeeharhar]

Not to nit pick but one does not grow maple syrup :lol:

Gah! Clearly you don't know anything about industrial maple syrup farming! ;)

Technically you do grow maple trees, and maple syrup is only produced during a fraction of the year -- hence there is a maple syrup growing season as there is an apple growing season...

[Flounder]

Technically you do grow maple trees, and maple syrup is only produced during a fraction of the year -- hence there is a maple syrup growing season as there is an apple growing season...