Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says

Aug 21, 2013
This file photo shows a child playing near the roots of palm trees exposed due to erosion on Ghoramara Island, in the Sundarbans, India, on December 11, 2009. Human activity is almost certainly the cause of climate change and global sea levels could rise by several feet by the end of the century, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, leaked to media on Tuesday.

Human activity is almost certainly the cause of climate change and global sea levels could rise by several feet by the end of the century, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report leaked to media.

The draft summary of the report all but dismissed recent claims of a slowdown in the pace of warming, which has seized upon by climate-change sceptics.

"It is extremely likely that on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," The New York Times on Tuesday quoted a section of the leaked report as saying.

"There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century."

The IPCC is made up of several hundred scientists worldwide who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with former US vice-president and noted environmental campaigner Al Gore.

The scientists' findings will be included in the next major United Nations report on climate change.

The leaked summary said the IPCC believed a could see sea levels rising by as much as three feet (90 centimeters) by the year 2100.

The language of the leaked summary appears to be stronger than in a previous UN report in 2007.

Graphic on global warming
Graphic on global warming. A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report leaked to the media on Tuesday says that human activity is almost certainly the cause of an increase in global average temperature from 1951 to 2010.

IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn emphasized in a statement that the quoted text was a draft version which may yet be modified.

Lynn said the document "is likely to change in response to comments from governments received in recent weeks and will also be considered by governments and scientists at a four-day approval session at the end of September."

"It is therefore premature and could be misleading to attempt to draw conclusions from it," he said.

Christopher Field, a researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told The Times that the draft had to reflect a wide range of views.

"I think that the IPCC has a tradition of being very conservative," Dr Field said. "They really want the story to be right."

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Dec 14, 2012

A major report on climate change being compiled by the United Nation's climate science panel was on Friday leaked online in what appeared to be an attempt by a climate sceptic to discredit the panel.

Australia heatwave part of global trend: IPCC chief

Jan 15, 2013

Australia's extreme summer heatwave, which caused devastating bushfires and saw temperature forecasts go off the scale, is part of a global warming trend, the UN's climate panel chief said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

17 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 431

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Egleton
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 21, 2013
Nik?
Doug_Huffman
2.1 / 5 (52) Aug 21, 2013
Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says
The IPCC and AGW are 'almost exactly' wrong.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2013
Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says
The IPCC and AGW are 'almost exactly' wrong.


I await your peer-reviewed evidence for whatever you propose is causing GW ( correlation and causation physics ) then. Unless you are one of the demented who also deny even warming is happening.
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (29) Aug 21, 2013
The only difference between an ostrich and Doug Huffman types are the holes their heads are buried in.
travisr
3.8 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2013
The real problem is that people confuse politics and science here. People think it is a political issue and so they automatically assume that GW is decided by opinion rather then science. Unfortunately history is marred with scientist who's ideas became political issues and it took many years to prove otherwise for this reason. See Galileo, Darwin, etc.

Their children will be the ones paying, and even if it isn't completely true we should be finding ways to reverse this clearly destructive force. Last I checked pumping more carbon into the atmosphere doesn't cause global cooling...
MR166
2.1 / 5 (49) Aug 21, 2013
This latest bit of propaganda needs a little translation before you can determine the reason for it's issuance. The Ministry of Truth is trying to prove that you need to cede all of your freedoms and wealth to them for the greater good of society.

As proof they use "Climate Models" which are unable to even predict the past. If you take one of these models and input the data from a few hundred years ago none of these models cannot predict today's climate.

With poor models and politically corrupted data anything can be "predicted"!
travisr
4 / 5 (20) Aug 21, 2013
See its all political! They, them, those, conspiracy to take, cast dispersion on climate models, cast those who will profit from your loss. (Not sure how?)

What do you run a power plant or an oil refinery?

This issue will get no traction until well after this theory predicts its too late. If it does become too late the human society could completely fail. Is it worth the risk to cut back?
mememine69
1.8 / 5 (34) Aug 21, 2013
Consensus:
Lots of scientists agree climate change "won't be" a deadly crisis.
Even more scientists agree climate change "could be" a deadlly crisis.
Not one single scientist has ever said climate change "WILL be" a deadly crisis.
Deny that!
travisr
4.4 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2013
This is true, but global warming will most certainly cost you more at the grocery store. It will cost you more in damage from violent storms which will also disrupt productivity driving up the price of general goods.

There are many downsides, and it seems just silly to taunt it because our society can easily afford to make the change towards carbon balance. We don't have to run this wacky experiment and see what happens, we can play it safe...
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (32) Aug 21, 2013
The Ministry of Truth is trying to prove that you need to cede all of your freedoms and wealth to them for the greater good of society.
With poor models and politically corrupted data anything can be "predicted"!


By inferring that this report is part of a "communist conspiracy", it's you who's politically corrupt. This report is about SCIENCE. The scientists of the IPCC don't belong to a single political group.
MR166
2 / 5 (37) Aug 21, 2013
"Their children will be the ones paying, and even if it isn't completely true we should be finding ways to reverse this clearly destructive force."

So you are willing to reduce the worlds GDP by trillions of dollars "Just in Case" it could help.

People sacrificed quite a few virgins just in case it would help.

Every one of today's "solutions" to the so called AGW changes involve government fees and government subsidies. In other words, give me your money and I will give it to my friends and save the world. Electric cars, solar and wind all involve a massive transfer of wealth.
travisr
3.9 / 5 (19) Aug 21, 2013
Reduce the worlds GDP? You mean constructing massive solar, wind, and nuclear systems, seeding the worlds oceans with iron to create more living mass in the ocean (think carbon sinks), purposely growing new forests will create less GDP? These all sound like productive, high labor jobs...
Grallen
3.5 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2013
Yeah. We would because: the "just in case" is similar to the odds of getting shot when playing Russian Roulette with a FULLY LOADED REVOLVER.

The chances of the consequences not happening are about the same odds as one of the bullets failing to fire. Yes it's not guaranteed they will fire, but they probably will.

"See he won't even say the bullets will fire for sure. We should definitely play..."
Moebius
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2013
What 'almost', it's absolutely certain to anyone with a functioning brain.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (30) Aug 21, 2013
If you're concerned about AGW your best bet is to reduce your carbon input. Stop watching television for 2 hours a day, stop surfing the web, stop commenting on physorg, stop driving cars (ride a bicycle), stop heating&cooling your homes, stop cooking and eat raw, etc.

The activism is not helping. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Instead of whining about what should be done, how about doing it. Your own actions are the only ones you can control. But, you won't. You're not willing to let go of modern technology. You want to continue living the lifestyle which contributes to global warming. This is why I can't take AGWites seriously. No conviction.
Moebius
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2013
Consensus:
Lots of scientists agree climate change "won't be" a deadly crisis.
Even more scientists agree climate change "could be" a deadlly crisis.
Not one single scientist has ever said climate change "WILL be" a deadly crisis.
Deny that!


I'm just an engineer but I'll say it, I've been saying it for 20 years, it WILL BE a deadly crisis, sooner than most think. Because a) scientists err on the side of caution b) our activities will not stop or slow, they will accelerate, it's human nature (imagine the monkey with a fist in the coconut who is trapped but won't let go).
Grallen
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
@Kron: Yes. Educated, contentious, people should just be quiet, so that the only people talking are the greedy.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2013
Problems are solved through actions, not words. Climate scientists presented their findings, human activity is contributing to global warming. Now what? You're not gonna change my actions. I'll still continue having bonfires, burning fossil fuels, etc. If you want to make a difference, change your own actions.
travisr
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
I'm an engineer that works for a company that makes geothermal power plants. Working 8 hours a day every day to put humanity on a better path to sustainability.
MR166
2 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2013
"Reduce the worlds GDP? You mean constructing massive solar, wind, and nuclear systems, seeding the worlds oceans with iron to create more living mass in the ocean (think carbon sinks), purposely growing new forests will create less GDP? These all sound like productive, high labor jobs..."

Any time you increase the cost of energy you lower the worlds standard of living and GDP. Green economics is based on a Pollyanna view of reality. As far as dumping iron into the ocean, do you really think that we know all of the unintended consequences of that?

BTW-----nothing helps the forests grow better than increased CO2.
Gmr
3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
Problems are solved through actions, not words. Climate scientists presented their findings, human activity is contributing to global warming. Now what? You're not gonna change my actions. I'll still continue having bonfires, burning fossil fuels, etc. If you want to make a difference, change your own actions.


And then we run into a common resource, such as electricity, where the decision on what to do is as a group. Your opinion appears to be "YOU stop using it!" Who do you blame for the ocean? How do you tell the weather to mind its own business?

If anything, it would appear the one not willing to share responsibility or burden who should stop using public roads, transport built by others, food not grown by you and so on - would be you.
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013

BTW-----nothing helps the forests grow better than increased CO2.


Spin. That appears to be all that's left now that the cost of doing nothing is starting to be measured in real dollars. Try and sell your GDP argument to insurance and reinsurance companies.
travisr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
The problem is that the economy is not a total economy. For every 1lb of CO2 you put in the air you should have to pay a fee equal to the cost to remove it from the air. It should be like this for every chemical you put into the environment. Then companies could start up and get paid for removing pollution, and companies polluting would get taxed, fined, whatever you want to call it to undue their damage.

Its fair and balances the wants of society against nature so that everything becomes sustainable.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (31) Aug 21, 2013
"Spin." eh, greenhouse operators find that CO2 levels between 1000 and 1500 ppm are ideal.
travisr
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
That could be high enough to make everyone else dumb enough to agree with you:

http://newscenter...ormance/
Kron
2 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
My opinion is take responsibility for your own actions. I'm aware of the potential consequences of mine and am willing to pay them in order to continue living the lifestyle I'm accustomed to.

Let's say I fall into the 1% of the population that is content with the possibility of a temperature increase, storm ferocity and incidence increase, ocean level increase, etc. If 99% of you choose that these potential consequences are not worth your lifestyle, it is in your power to change the way you live. My 1% will continue to tribute, but 99% of the AGW problem will be gone.

The problem is none of you are actually willing to change the way you live. You want changes to happen but you are unwilling to make them.
MR166
2 / 5 (29) Aug 21, 2013
Also, it seems that the world deserts are getting smaller and the surrounding areas greener. Tell me, which computer simulation predicted that?
MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
"The problem is that the economy is not a total economy. For every 1lb of CO2 you put in the air you should have to pay a fee equal to the cost to remove it from the air."

That is only a rational argument if you can prove that modest increases in CO2 levels are harmful. If they are not then you are just wasting energy, time and resources and not performing useful work. As an example you could remove the last trace of arsenic from a public water supply but then no one could afford the water. Or you could remove the last trace of tail pipe emissions but make autos unobtainable.

Adding needless costs to a product does nothing but move everyone closer to poverty and starvation.
travisr
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2013
The problem is you can NEVER prove these things conclusively one way or another. You can't even PROVE Newtons laws, or the laws of thermal dynamics. Nothing is able to be proved conclusively without doubt. If the value you are trying to get before you do something about the environment is Yes or No, you will always do nothing.

There are hundreds of thousands of variables influencing our environment every day, only through statistics and lots of testing can we make any assumption or correlation, and these correlations will be loose because we don't have all the variables.

Yes we are taking a risk its fruitless, but we have a 1T dollar military and not much use of that either. We could spend a little here, go a long ways, and come out on the side of safe. Or we could land in complete catastrophe.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 21, 2013
The only difference between an ostrich and Doug Huffman types are the holes their heads are buried in.

I think that the ostrich's sand hole option requires less in the way of spinal flexibility than the other cavity alternative of which you write.
Sanescience
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
Wow, the navel gazing here is epic. Climate change is most likely a symptom, not a primary force of human destiny.

For a moment lets take a world history view of this issue. Population growing by an exponential factor has brought us to 7.1 billion and growing. Worse, the growth is very uneven. Yet "prosperous" populations are mostly declining. In Europe where those two groups meet, it will eventually be war.

There are hundreds of ways fundamental systems of the planet are now being impacted. There is hardly any natural water flow into the ocean any more changing a patchwork of temperature, salinity, and silt regions. Wide scale agriculture causes evaporation and humidity patterns to change on land. The top food chain animals of the land and sea are all being reduced to small fractions of their former numbers. Smaller animal numbers grow unchecked by the top food chain (think red tide or invasive species). On and on. CO2! Yea! Fix that and everything will be great.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2013
Also, it seems that the world deserts are getting smaller and the surrounding areas greener. Tell me, which computer simulation predicted that?


They probably did as it is obvious that increased CO2 would encourage growth but there's a difference between fertility of growth and sustainability of growth. CO2 is a fertilizer to plants/trees. Water is a necessity - they can't live without it. If you understand AGW science then you would be aware of the increasing incidence of drought. Fertilizer is no good my friend without water.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2013
So if it's all political (which it is) then DROP YOUR POLITICS. Give it up boys and girls, give up your policy based "solutions" which are thinly disguised attempts to control huge sectors of the most vital part of the economy and start advocating handing out permits for fourth generation nuclear power plants....

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that AGW is real...no scratch that I KNOW it's real. It's politics that's getting in the way of an ACTUAL solution though.

Put up or shut up because right NOW at this point it's not the denialists, but YOU who are causing the destruction of the planet...period.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
Sane you make some very valid points. Using precious water and soil resources to grow bio fuels makes little or no sense and is not a solution to anything. Even cellulosic ethanol, if it even can be economically produced, robs the soils of valuable nutrients that should be saved for food production in the future.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
"Water is a necessity - they can't live without it. If you understand AGW science then you would be aware of the increasing incidence of drought. Fertilizer is no good my friend without water."

Funny you should mention that, since plants need less fertilizer and water as CO2 levels increase. You see, CO2 is really plant food.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013
"Water is a necessity - they can't live without it. If you understand AGW science then you would be aware of the increasing incidence of drought. Fertilizer is no good my friend without water."

Funny you should mention that, since plants need less fertilizer and water as CO2 levels increase. You see, CO2 is really plant food.


This is true - but I said "without water" not with less water. Drought - as in months/years will kill unless we are talking cactus.
It's a matter of degree here. The thing about CO2 that is unwelcome is it's GHG effect, and that will swamp beneficial effects except at the margins of ecosystems that have enough available precipitation for sustainabliity.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
A triumph of belief over common sense, of ideology over logic - well done the person who gave a 1 for the intuitively bl*^^^y obvious post I just made, that said, in essence - that lack of water kills irrespective of how much fertilizer you give a plant. Full stop.

The mind does indeed boggle at times.
Would you like to post your reasons for disagreeing?
I'm sure the science world is agog.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
Or perhaps, poster, you disagree with my statement that "CO2 has a GHG effect"

Again I await the reasons for that belief.
The peer-reviewed papers that state otherwise - counter indeed to science known for nigh on 150 years.
MR166
2 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
I doubt that doubling of CO2 levels would cause any real harm. The problem is that we will run out of ECONOMICALLY producible fossil fuels way before that happens. As technology advances solar could become cost effective and help replace fossil fuels. Fukushima has pretty much proven that man is not intelligent enough to operate TODAY's nuclear reactors and tomorrows reactors that cannot enter runaway mode need to be developed in order to have an interim solution until renewables or fusion power are able to supply our electric needs in a cost efficient manner.

Oil and gas must be conserved and only used for the purposes for which they are uniquely suited since they are far to valuable waste. I.E. I cannot see a farmer plowing a field with battery power in the near future or an airplane transporting 500 people and their baggage using battery power.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
"Or perhaps, poster, you disagree with my statement that "CO2 has a GHG effect"

Again, the fact that it has an effect is meaningless until you can quantify it. It makes little sense to ruin an economic system to mitigate an effect that is buried in the overall climate noise signal.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (23) Aug 21, 2013
I await your peer-reviewed evidence ....

I hope you don't mean peer review as practiced by the corrupt AGW Alarmists er... excuse me scientists.
http://blogs.tele...-review/
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2013

I hope you don't mean peer review as practiced by the corrupt AGW Alarmists er... excuse me scientists.
http://blogs.tele...-review/

Attack the science by attacking the scientists. I suppose the anti-crowd blogs are whiter than white - I mean they critically evaluate the science. They are independant of any lobby, either by ideology/politics/financial gain. Besides their being vastly outnumbered, making the logic even more bizarre ( or is that the point ?)
Do me a favour and use some common sense logic.
You again return to the beyond bizarre premise that it's all a put-up job.
You are aware of the logical probability of that being true? or do you belong to the "experts are often wrong" brigade and by analogy presume that laymen "are often right".

Ah - Mr Delingpole of "Torygraph" fame.....
http://www.youtub...uhKzYp4s
http://www.youtub...uhKzYp4s
Gmr
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
"Or perhaps, poster, you disagree with my statement that "CO2 has a GHG effect"

Again, the fact that it has an effect is meaningless until you can quantify it. It makes little sense to ruin an economic system to mitigate an effect that is buried in the overall climate noise signal.

The economy of today will not survive regardless. And I'm not talking about socialist code or any nonsense like somehow magically capitalism goes away.

It is suicide for a capitalism based marketplace to fight change, yet monopolies and plutocrats within that system seek to keep it from changing. Seek change, seek new markets or be left behind in the tatters of the economy you tried to fix in amber.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 21, 2013
GMR we might finally be on the same page. Economies free of government (Plutocratic) interference are capable of making the needed changes.
scottfos
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2013
why aren't naysayers commenting on this article? http://phys.org/n...ats.html
Sanescience
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
The needed changes probably require a larger fraction of today's population quality of life to be significantly raised. That requires energy and education. With a fair bit of luck fusion will be here to help within the decade.

http://www.fusion...n_device

But education is needed for population control and rational social interaction. Otherwise all the progress made will count for nothing if wide scale war breaks out.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2013
"why aren't naysayers commenting on this article? http://phys.org/n...ats.html"

Because the antarctic is cooling I.E. more ice !!!!!!!!
Gmr
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2013
GMR we might finally be on the same page. Economies free of government (Plutocratic) interference are capable of making the needed changes.


So this would be tacit admission that the government is bought and paid for by business interests hellbent on keeping us at the teat of big oil? Not conspiracy minded, mind you - but the government is clearly in bed with the business sector. Hearings on Benghazi, no hearings on why no names were jailed after the self-made financial crisis.
runrig
3.1 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
"why aren't naysayers commenting on this article? http://phys.org/n...ats.html"

Because the antarctic is cooling I.E. more ice !!!!!!!!


From the article.....
".....researchers from the British Antarctic Survey and Plymouth Marine Laboratory assessed the likely impact of projected temperature increases on the Weddell Sea, Scotia Sea and Southern Drake Passage, which is known for its abundance of krill. This region has experienced sea surface warming of as much as 1°C over fifty years. Projections suggest this could rise by another 1°C by the end of the 21st century."
MR166
2.2 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2013
Not just big oil but Buffet, Soros ,GE and the like. Crony capitalism is just as bad as communism. We need to separate the election process from the financial moguls. Term limits, even for the "Good Guys", is a must. We the people are not in control of the election process.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013
I dunno. Maybe its not all that bad.
http://www.youtub...k1imHVno

Bitches.
GuruShabu
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 21, 2013
More of the same: Eco-fascism.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (32) Aug 21, 2013
This report fails to mention what else was leaked- namely that the last 30 years are the warmest the earth has been for 800 years. This effectively sinks the infamous Mann made hockey stick and restores the Medieval Warm Period. The MWP was preceded by the Roman Warm period which was preceded by the Minoan preceded by the Holocene Climate Optimum. These warm periods occur roughly every 900 years so the present one is right on queue. No CO2 is required as an explanation.
Kron
2.4 / 5 (36) Aug 21, 2013
All joking aside, do people still buy into this AGW bullshit? Is everyone aware that all climate change research is reviewed by other climate scientists? Climate scientists are evaluated by other climate scientists. If the research shows results which oppose the current belief the researcher does not pass review. If the panel were to pass this researcher they'd be discrediting their own work.
Claudius
2 / 5 (23) Aug 21, 2013
I dunno. Maybe its not all that bad.
http://www.youtub...k1imHVno

Bitches.


++good

http://www.youtub...h0DErckQ
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (30) Aug 21, 2013
Attack the science by attacking the scientists.

Oh runrig, you are too funny. Had you bothered to read any of those Climate Gate emails, you'd realize just how much. Your so called scientists have brought shame and corruption to science, yet they were ceremoniously returned to their jobs to be praised and worshiped at the altar by the likes of you. It is beyond you to realize that yours is a cult that masks the lies that is your scripture by calling it science and any credible scientist who attempts to reveal the truth is branded a heretic by you.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2013
"The IPCC and AGW are 'almost exactly' wrong." - DouggieTard

DouggieTard knows this because he read it on a Conservative right Wing blog who's author is a failed auto-mechanic and who is supplementing his income with payments from the Koch Brothers to support their corrupt business practices.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2013
"Had you bothered to read any of those Climate Gate emails" - Anti-Gore-Tard

I have read all of them. And of the 6 found to be offending by Denialist Retards, all are just regular scientific banter purposely taken out of context by those Conservative Enemies of science such as yourself.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
"Is everyone aware that all climate change research is reviewed by other climate scientists?" - Kron

Kron thinks that Climate Science should be reviewed by dentists, and that dental science should be reviewed by Archaeologists.

Stupid people think many stupid things.

VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
"These warm periods occur roughly every 900 years so the present one is right on queue. No CO2 is required as an explanation." - GregorTard

GregorTard continues to live his fantasy, even though such a periodic warming has no basis in fact.

http://www.global..._Rev.png

GregorTard has been shown the graphic above many times, and yet he persists in proclaiming false news.

That is why his is labeled a Tard.
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
"More of the same: Eco-fascism." - GuruTard

The Guru thinks that mother nature (reality) is a Fascist.

Observed reality doesn't care about his personal political opinions.
Neither does any rational, thinking, person.
VendicarE
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
"We the people are not in control of the election process." - MR-166

Sure you are. You are just collectively too stupid to use your power at the ballot box.

50% of Americans vote for expanded levels of Government Corruption. 50% of the brain cells in Uncle Sam's brain are cancerous Republican cells.

Prognosis - terminal.
VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
Hearings on Benghazi, no hearings on why no names were jailed after the self-made financial crisis." - Gmr

"We need to manufacture an (economic) crisis in order to assure that there are no alternatives to a smaller government." - Jeb Bush - Impris Magazine, 1995

Starve the beast of big government though national bankruptcy.

That has been the Republican plan for decades. Treason.

VendicarE
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
"Because the antarctic is cooling I.E. more ice !!!!!!!!" - Mr166

http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/piomas-trnd6.png

Poor Mr.

It must take considerable mental effort to look at the above graphic and proclaim that there is "more ice" in the arctic.

Do you get assistance by taking stupid pills or something?

VendicarE
2.1 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
"Economies free of government (Plutocratic) interference are capable of making the needed changes." - Mr166

In what way are government regulations that are requiring change, preventing change.

Be specific Tardie Boy.
VendicarE
2.3 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2013
"corrupt AGW Alarmists er... excuse me scientists." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Science and Scientists have always been attacked by those who value their ideological world view over the scientific observation of the real world.

I find it perpetually amazing that people like Anti-Gore-Tard manage to exist in the modern world.

How do they manage to feed themselves?
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2013
"Funny you should mention that, since plants need less fertilizer and water as CO2 levels increase." - Mr166

Only up to a point, and that point has largely been reached.

Has it saved your skin?

Nope.

You are living in a land of ideologically driven, self delusion.
Kron
2.5 / 5 (28) Aug 22, 2013
"Is everyone aware that all climate change research is reviewed by other climate scientists?" - Kron

Kron thinks that Climate Science should be reviewed by dentists, and that dental science should be reviewed by Archaeologists.

Stupid people think many stupid things.


You understand that the climate researchers that conclude that anthropogenic practices have little to no effect on climate do not pass review and are therefore not taken seriously, right?

The only way you pass review is by having the panel agree with your conclusions. The panel is made up of individuals who have already concluded that anthropogenic climate change is "almost certain".

Global temperature hasn't risen a single degree Celsius since industrialization.
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2013
Hmm.

"Kron Job (noun): Attempting to assert random opinions as fact, seeing conspiracy in anything that disagrees with you."
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (29) Aug 22, 2013
Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says
Seems ridiculously pretentious, as, doesn't this imply the climate cannot change without the influence of man?

runrig
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2013
All joking aside, do people still buy into this AGW bullshit? Is everyone aware that all climate change research is reviewed by other climate scientists? Climate scientists are evaluated by other climate scientists. If the research shows results which oppose the current belief the researcher does not pass review. If the panel were to pass this researcher they'd be discrediting their own work.


Err - who are the best people to evaluate climate science if not climate scientists!
that's the way it works in all science.
You are complaining of a universal system that stems from obvious logic. Experts in a subject can be the only ones qualified to review. At least the biases of the reviewers are based on science and not ideology - the driving force of the denier.
Human nature cannot be divorced from any human activity, we just have to take the the action of least worst.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2013

Oh runrig, you are too funny. Had you bothered to read any of those Climate Gate emails, you'd realize just how much. Your so called scientists have brought shame and corruption to science, .............


I, of course, have .....
http://www.youtub...Ve6KE-Us

The "shame" is a self-fulfilling prophecy inherent in the denier's world and not science - your reliance on the Internet and denialist blogs does not represent science.
Apart from anything else you are accusing a put-up job, yes?
One that would have to be followed by the 100's, 1000's of other climate scientists around the world in order to be consistent. On the balance of probability, that is passing remote and to anyone with a logical mind - bizarre. And which would have been found out by the person in the vid, given his skeptic bent (at the time) and the source of the funding he received. You (deniers) are so desperate to maintain your own world of "truth" that even logic gets thrown out of the window.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (25) Aug 22, 2013
"In what way are government regulations that are requiring change, preventing change.

Be specific Tardie Boy."

Governments inhibit change by distorting the marketplace and giving one set of people advantages over others.

A prime example is the Keystone pipeline. That oil will be used by one country or another. It is just a matter of which country has access to it. No pipeline equals less US oil.

Warren Buffet owns a whole bunch of railroads that transport oil. Warren Buffet also donates great sums of money to the democrats. The democrats oppose the Keystone pipeline. Do you see how one hand washes the other and stalls needed changes?
brt
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
One would think that on a science news website, a denier of a popular belief in a field of science would be able to point out WHY the popular belief is incorrect rather than be dependent on the always flimsy argument of a conspiracy.

Since a conspiracy could be claimed on either side, with zero evidence to support it, why don't we avoid that cyclic and pointless claim and present some sort of evidence to support each others' stance. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, NOT SOME BULLSHIT ARTICLE FROM ANOTHER FLUFF SITE LIKE FOXNEWS OR HUFFINGTON POST OR THE GUARDIAN OR CBS, ETC.

Someone please point out the specific failures in scientific theory, models, and evidence. DO NOT just link to another site. Sum it up in a comment in your own words so that I know the exact issue you have with the climate studies conducted; remember to avoid the empty claim of a conspiracy. If you can't tell me anything, then what does that say about your argument against human caused climate change? that it's baseless.
brt
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2013
I'm giving you the formula for presenting a valid argument which would change my mind. It's my belief that if you could follow the guide lines I presented above, then most who accept man made climate change would entertain the idea of changing their mind if presented with valid evidence.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2013
There have been plenty of published studies which have shown that today's climate is not at all unusual. The "Hockey Stick" papers have for the most part, been discredited. The models have been a dismal failure except as a source of propaganda. Funding for the pro AGW side must be 100 times that of the non AGW side.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
Someone please point out the specific failures in scientific theory, models, and evidence. DO NOT just link to another site. Sum it up in a comment in your own words so that I know the exact issue you have with the climate studies conducted; remember to avoid the empty claim of a conspiracy. If you can't tell me anything, then what does that say about your argument against human caused climate change? that it's baseless.


And I'm giving you the formula to change the mind of the deniers...or more to the point gain their cooperation on the issue of climate change and all of you are totally ignoring it because your politics are ultimately more important to you than the planet....
brt
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 22, 2013
There have been plenty of published studies which have shown that today's climate is not at all unusual. The "Hockey Stick" papers have for the most part, been discredited. The models have been a dismal failure except as a source of propaganda. Funding for the pro AGW side must be 100 times that of the non AGW side.


You just presented 3 conspiracies in one quote, making your comment completely invalid. Congratulations.
brt
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
Someone please point out the specific failures in scientific theory, models, and evidence. DO NOT just link to another site. Sum it up in a comment in your own words so that I know the exact issue you have with the climate studies conducted; remember to avoid the empty claim of a conspiracy. If you can't tell me anything, then what does that say about your argument against human caused climate change? that it's baseless.


And I'm giving you the formula to change the mind of the deniers...or more to the point gain their cooperation on the issue of climate change and all of you are totally ignoring it because your politics are ultimately more important to you than the planet....


I'm a nuclear engineer, bubba, I generally don't get involved in politics. So apparently you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 22, 2013
You know, I just looked at the picture does that look like lack of rain or sea level rise to you?????? Could the IPPC just be making this SH*T up?????
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2013
"doesn't this imply the climate cannot change without the influence of man?" - UbVonTard

Nope.

Are you really so stupid that you believe it does?

Were you dropped on your head when you were a baby?
MR166
2 / 5 (24) Aug 22, 2013
VD how many more degrees do you need to obtain to cease being ignorant?
Neinsense99
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
VD how many more degrees do you need to obtain to cease being ignorant?

Don't you have more pole shift cover-up conspiracy twaddle to spread?
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 22, 2013
I call bullshit!
Someone please point out the specific failures in scientific theory, models, and evidence. DO NOT just link to another site. Sum it up in a comment in your own words so that I know the exact issue you have with the climate studies conducted; remember to avoid the empty claim of a conspiracy. If you can't tell me anything, then what does that say about your argument against human caused climate change? that it's baseless.


And I'm giving you the formula to change the mind of the deniers...or more to the point gain their cooperation on the issue of climate change and all of you are totally ignoring it because your politics are ultimately more important to you than the planet....


I'm a nuclear engineer, bubba, I generally don't get involved in politics. So apparently you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 22, 2013
One would think that on a science news website, a denier of a popular belief in a field of science would be able to point out WHY the popular belief is incorrect rather than be dependent on the always flimsy argument of a conspiracy.

One would think that after your False Prophet Gore proclaimed - the science is settled - that your argument would be factual and not on popular cultist belief.
One would think that after reading the Climate Gate emails, in which your "top scientists" spelled out in detail their plans to intimidate and destroy the heretics and their opposing views, that whatever little moral sense you possessed would lead you to question their veracity.
The flimsy argument of a conspiracy, is only flimsy to those like you who are brainwashed by the cult to ignore the reality all around you that flies in the face of your popular belief.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 22, 2013
"Don't you have more pole shift cover-up conspiracy twaddle to spread?"

No I ran out so let me summarize the AGW proof of warming.

More Rain, Less Rain, No Snow, More Snow, Ice at the poles is due to a temperature increase, Less ice at the poles is due to temperature increase, Sea Surface Temperature would be greater but 700+ meters ate it all......Ad Infinitum.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2013
Mr166 - "VD how many more degrees do you need to obtain to cease being ignorant?"

Exactly Zero of course.

Have you asked your Local high school Janitor for his recommendations for the treatment of your brain cancer?

I hear that 9 out of 10 circus clowns recommend balloon animal therapy to cure your kind of tumor.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
"No I ran out so let me summarize the AGW proof of warming." - Mr166Tard

Odd how you left out the actual measurement of global average temperatures from your claimed proof.

Neither More Rain or Less Rain implies a change in temperature, TardieBoy.

The direct observation of global temperature increase. does.

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2013
"A prime example is the Keystone pipeline. " - Mr166Tard

First, no decision has been made on that pipeline.

Second, how do you conclude that a decision that hasn't been made is preventing the marketplace from not producing the pipeline?

Think little boy. Provide us with some examples of how government regulation prevented the marketplace from acting in a manner that the regulation required.

Be specific.

MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2013
"First, no decision has been made on that pipeline."

Canada has told the US to go "F" itself over the pipeline and that they will gladly sell the oil to China!!!!!
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
"You understand that the climate researchers that conclude that anthropogenic practices have little to no effect on climate do not pass review and are therefore not taken seriously, right?" - KronTard

Yes, it is a horrible system that prevents the publication of bigfoot research in the Journals of Nature, and prevents the publication of 7 dimensional aliens from the planet mongo from being published in the journal Science.

You are right of course. Gerontologists and Podiatrists should be deciding upon the validity of high energy physics, and Herpetologists deciding upon the efficacy of the various modes and methods of Cancer treatment.

Oops. I've used too many big words and you will not be able to understand my reply.

You poor Tard you.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
"Canada has told the US to go "F" itself" - Mr166Tard

So how has Canada's decision to tell the U.S. to go Fuck itself, preventing it from telling the U.S.to go fuck itself?

Can't you find even a single example that supports your position?

Morrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrron.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2013
"One would think that after your False Prophet Gore proclaimed - the science is settled - that your argument would be factual and not on popular cultist belief." - Anti-Gore-Tard

If you were a scientist, and if you were capable of producing a sensible, and creditable scientific argument to the contrary then Gore would be wrong.

But since you are a fool and not a scientist, and since you are incapable of rational thought, Gore's proclamation that "the science is settled" remains absolutely correct.

All that remains is quibbling over some of the second and third order effects.

The science has been settled for decades, TardieBoy.

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2013
"The flimsy argument of a conspiracy, is only flimsy to those like you who are brainwashed by the cult.." - Anti-Gore-Tard

As I said, you are incapable of producing a scientific argument so you sit there with your thumb up your ass and whine and moan and spout conspiratorial nonsense.

You are a bungling, bumbling, inept, Republican, fool who is incapable of rational thought.

Howhot
2.5 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2013
Those people that have actual scientific evidence to refute the IPPC extremely conservative conclusions, please bury your heads in the sand now! If you already have your head in the sand, just stay there.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2013
More Rain, Less Rain, No Snow, More Snow, Ice at the poles is due to a temperature increase, Less ice at the poles is due to temperature increase, Sea Surface Temperature would be greater but 700+ meters ate it all......Ad Infinitum.


It's just the "inconvenient truth" my friend.
A warming globe does indeed do all those things - only an ignorant denier would only think that the only metric to change would be temperature. Full stop. As in an inexorable, unwavering rock-steady upwartd slope. Independant of other effects that are both feedbacks of warming and the overlying variables of the climate system. That all parts of the globe will experience the same rise and that things like SST's, ice-melt, solar and aerosol would not have differential effects. That the Poles would warm evenly and that the jet stream would not be affected, moving air-masses and their heat/cold/rain/snow futher afield. Pathetic really.
MR166
2 / 5 (24) Aug 23, 2013
So what ever happens, it is due to man's release of CO2.

These beliefs are closer to some sort of new age religion than real science.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (25) Aug 23, 2013
As I said, you are incapable of producing a scientific argument... BLAH BLAH BLAH...

Science...science...science....hee...haw..hee...haw..(The obstinate bray of the AGW idiot)
Climate science is the furthest thing from science and you got Jones, Mann..et al. to thank for that. They have taken it from pure conjecture to outright deceit.
As the real world reveals their last 2 decades of lies, they must now resort to alarmist propaganda to feed the ignorant chicken littles like you.
no fate
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2013
So what ever happens, it is due to man's release of CO2.

These beliefs are closer to some sort of new age religion than real science.


Humans convert stored energy from matter in order to drive the processes of our existence. Every one of us does it, every animal we eat does it. All of the waste bi-products from our varying lifestyles are released back into the environment either in the form of solid waste, or atmospheric emissions. The science behind the effects of these emissions is very accurate. All of this information is free and available to anyone who wishes to educate themselves about what is going on.

We have been doing this at a rate that outpaces the earths ability to absorb the waste for a long time. The addition of this extra energy means that we are responsible for the effects it generates.

Hence the IPCC conclusion we are responsible. You have to be very mentally impaired to not understand this conclusion or how it was reached.
runrig
3 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2013
So what ever happens, it is due to man's release of CO2.

These beliefs are closer to some sort of new age religion than real science.


If your grasp of the complexity of the climate system and how that system behaves under warming does not fit your simplistic thinking - it is the simplistic thinking at fault not the scientists who we employ (because they do know the science) to study it and tell us what ( to the best of they're ability ) is happening to it. It is for others to decide on the action . And it is not a religion just because you cannot understand it. You have one obvious avenue - that is put aside your ideologically based bias and learn.
sirchick
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2013
Why do they keep saying "yup definitely humans causing it"

Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!
Gmr
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2013
Why do they keep saying "yup definitely humans causing it"

Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!


"X is happening"

"Well, let's stop X! How do we stop X?"

"We figure out what is causing X, and we target that."

*research research*

"We are probably causing X."

"Well, we shouldn't really do anything until we know for sure... go back, try again..."

*several iterations later*

"We are very highly probably causing X"

"Well, maybe X isn't happening, or X is actually a good thing!"

"..."

lewando
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 23, 2013
Why do they keep saying "yup definitely humans causing it"

Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!


We might be waiting a long while before we get to that.

If and when the war between AGW-ists and anti-AGW-ists is ever resolved, there will be another war--between the Controllers and the Adapters. God help us if the Controllers win, though. They will immediately start infighting over the correct temperature to set the global thermostat.
djr
3.6 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2013
If and when the war between AGW-ists and anti-AGW-ists is ever resolved,

The interesting thing lewando is that this war has already been resolved. Yes it rages here on Physorg - but that is just becuase there is a group of dufuses who have nothing better to do than plaster the internet with obfuscation. Out in the real world - it is clear that global warming is accepted - and we have started down the road of building a different world. - Here is just one of dozens of articles published every day - this one shows that every watt of electricity added to the grid in Australia in 2012 was either solar or wind. http://cleantechn...r-solar/ The fighting here on Physorg is pretty irrelevant.
rug
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 23, 2013
The fighting here on Physorg is pretty irrelevant.

Very true, but it would be nice of some of these goofs would see reason or at least stop preaching there disproven beliefs.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2013
"Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!" - Sir Tard

Similarly we should get on with curing cancer without fingering what causes it.

Mechanics often fix cars without knowing how they work or what the problem is with them.

Brilliant.
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
"Science...science...science....hee...haw..hee...haw.." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Yup... That is exactly how Republicans view science and the real world.

They are the enemy.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (24) Aug 23, 2013
I'm actually hoping this AGW thing pans out. A 5-10 degree Celsius increase in temperature would be quite nice. Unfortunately, at the rate we're going, it'll take thousands of years until we get there. Maybe if we all agree to increase our green house gas emissions we could accelerate the warming and we can all start enjoying the new and improved planet Earth.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (25) Aug 23, 2013
"Science...science...science....hee...haw..hee...haw.." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Yup... That is exactly how Republicans view science and the real world.

They are the enemy.

And you're a little fucking bitch! You make non-republicans want to become republicans to distance themselves from the likes of you. You fucking reTARD!
Kron
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 23, 2013
Now why don't you shut the fuck up and return to your autofellatio! Is that too big of a word for you?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2013
I'm actually hoping this AGW thing pans out. A 5-10 degree Celsius increase in temperature would be quite nice. Unfortunately, at the rate we're going, it'll take thousands of years until we get there. Maybe if we all agree to increase our green house gas emissions we could accelerate the warming and we can all start enjoying the new and improved planet Earth.


Are you serious?
You may personally live in a climate that "would be more pleasant if 5-10C warmer - but what about the large part of the planet where the bulk of it's population lives?
How would your local flora/fauna fare? Local crop production.
What about run-off/flash-flooding from increased storminess.

This is about rather more than it being more pleasant sat by the pool.
And just another selfishly blind statement that beggars belief.
sirchick
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2013
Why do they keep saying "yup definitely humans causing it"

Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!


"X is happening"

"Well, let's stop X! How do we stop X?"

"We figure out what is causing X, and we target that."

*research research*

"We are probably causing X."

"Well, we shouldn't really do anything until we know for sure... go back, try again..."

*several iterations later*

"We are very highly probably causing X"

"Well, maybe X isn't happening, or X is actually a good thing!"

"..."



My point is how many times are they going to say we're causing till they say "ok now lets do something about it" it just never ends.

The money could of been spent doing things like cleaning up pollution which benefits us humans even if it doesn't affect climate.
sirchick
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
"Spend time finding solutions not pointing the damn finger i say!" - Sir Tard

Similarly we should get on with curing cancer without fingering what causes it.

Mechanics often fix cars without knowing how they work or what the problem is with them.

Brilliant.


Saying "humans are the cause" is not helpful "tard". Unless you suggest we wipe out all humans.

Dealing with human pollution benefits more than just GW anyway so the money could've just been dealt with cutting emissions rather than further backing up humans being the cause which has been done so many times now i've lost count.

Long story short, we get it... humans are causing GW, this is not groundbreaking news. This has been found in studies over and over again. We need to just get on with solving the problem not pointing the finger.
Antoweif
2.2 / 5 (20) Aug 24, 2013
I find it hilarious that humans can get hung up on useless stuff like global warming, when we have more serious threats that needs our attention right now.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (21) Aug 24, 2013
I'm actually hoping this AGW thing pans out. A 5-10 degree Celsius increase in temperature would be quite nice. Unfortunately, at the rate we're going, it'll take thousands of years until we get there. Maybe if we all agree to increase our green house gas emissions we could accelerate the warming and we can all start enjoying the new and improved planet Earth.


Are you serious?
You may personally live in a climate that "would be more pleasant if 5-10C warmer - but what about the large part of the planet where the bulk of it's population lives?
How would your local flora/fauna fare? Local crop production.
What about run-off/flash-flooding from increased storminess.

This is about rather more than it being more pleasant sat by the pool.
And just another selfishly blind statement that beggars belief.


Very serious.

http://www.stanfo...Man.html
runrig
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2013
Very serious.
http://www.stanfo...Man.html
Yes, of course you are, as a denier (by inference of your post ), you latch onto anything that will support your ideology.

I see the author is an economist - who is obviously far more qualified to speak about climate science than, well, a climate scientist. His thesis is a triumph of ignorance and dismissing arrogance.

Here is a critique of his thesis by Raymond Pierrehumbert.........http://www.greenp...a=Search

PDF so click top link
http://en.wikiped...ehumbert
It's long and a bit technical in places - but it has to be because the science is complicated and Moore has simplified, reduced, confounded, mythologised (MWP & Holocene Optimum) and lied to spin into the outcome he desires.

But, then of course, Mr Pierrehumbert is part of the grand conspiracy.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 24, 2013
My conclusion on the matter is this: an increase in temperature will result in positive changes on Earth. Due to this I do not fear Global Warming (Anthropogenic or not) and will therefore make no personal changes in lifestyle in order to slow the warming. If negative repercussions follow my actions I will live with them knowing that I followed my intuitions and best judgement. I listened to what the climate scientists had to say and I disagree with their conclusions mainly on the basis of lack of backing data which only extends back a couple of hundred years. The sample size is not large enough to show any patterns or the lack there of. I'm not convinced, nor will I be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 24, 2013
"Science...science...science....hee...haw..hee...haw.." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Yup... That is exactly how Republicans view science and the real world.

They are the enemy.

Yup, that's exactly how the ignorant AGW chicken littles have been trained to see the real world, everyone else is a Republican, never mind there are countries with people outside the US. Try to grow a brain.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2013
........nor will I be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter.


I would expect nothing else from a denialist.

BTW: I suppose you'd go to a psychic surgeon rather than a oncologist should the need arise?
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2013
"I'm actually hoping this AGW thing pans out. A 5-10 degree Celsius increase in temperature would be quite nice." - KronTard

The last time temperatures were that high, most of the land mass of the earth was uninhabitable.

Mass Death, Mass Extinction and mass Destruction seems to be the goal of every Republican.

They are the enemy.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
"I'm not convinced, nor will I be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter." - KronTard

KronTard claims that it will not change it's mind no matter what evidence is presented.

It shares that low IQ trait with Bananas, Pet rocks and door knobs.

I commend him on so clearly proclaiming his intellectual inferiority.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
"never mind there are countries with people outside the US. " - Anti-Gore-Tard

And they are all laughing their asses off at how stupid and how corrupt American Republicans are.

Filth.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
"Very serious." - KronTard

KronTard links to a long discredited article written by Tobacco Industry aplogisit Thomas Gale Moore.

Filth.
VENDItardE
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 24, 2013
I just love it when VendicarE loses his mind and starts posting under his account instead of all his sockpuppets.......clearly has administrator access as well since he isn't governed by the one post per 3 minute rule.
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
"Saying "humans are the cause" is not helpful "tard". Unless you suggest we wipe out all humans. " - Sir Tard

If the only solution to humans being the cause were to wipe out all humans, you would be right. But since human behavior can be changed, you are simply a monumental fool.

Do you intend to remain a fool for the rest of your life?

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
VendiTard hasn't posted since he was identified as a sock puppet of ParkerTard.

Both persona's have a history of extreme Republican dishonesty.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
"And you're a little fucking bitch!" - KronTard

Look TardieBoy. You are clearly an intellectual inferior and incapable of learning, what do you think you are accomplishing by being here along your intellectual superiors?

Is it your goal to demonstrate to the world how worthless and corrupt, American Conservatives are?
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2013
nor will I be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter.

Opinions are supported by facts and reason. Beliefs are at odds with facts and reason.
Opinions are open to change by facts and reason (and ample such facts have been presented). Beliefs are not.

What you have is a belief, not an opinion.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 24, 2013
Opinions are supported by facts and reason. Beliefs are at odds with facts and reason.
Opinions are open to change by facts and reason (and ample such facts have been presented). Beliefs are not.
So as the facts prove there isn't any global warming, you'll admit AGW is a belief then?

GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 24, 2013
Eco-Fascism...and the supporters of the GW are all contributing towards a UN (Global Government) implementation, which, in fact, is in full swing.
I am afraid we all "deniers" will lose this incredible battle based on false propaganda on the style of Goebbels.
If you don't know anything about it but even though tag this very important issue as "conspiracy theory" and you want to put one * on me, please inform yourself about the Agenda 21.
rug
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 25, 2013
So as the facts prove there isn't any global warming, you'll admit AGW is a belief then?


Take that graph and have it start from 1960. Oh there is the warming tend. Clear as a bell now isn't it. Trying to provide data out of context is just stupidity.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 25, 2013
nor will I be persuaded to change my opinion on the matter.

Opinions are supported by facts and reason. Beliefs are at odds with facts and reason.
Opinions are open to change by facts and reason (and ample such facts have been presented). Beliefs are not.

What you have is a belief, not an opinion.


My opinion cannot be changed due to the reason I gave in the comment you've partially quoted. You'd understand why if you were paying attention to what I've said rather than focusing on your agenda.

Until you travel back in time and collect historical data that wasn't previously collected (spanning back thousands of years), the data set is not large enough for a full analysis, and therefore the predictions based upon the limited data are weak at best, and highly unreliable. Not much more than conjecture.

Since I don't BELIEVE in the possibility of time travel to the past, my OPINION on the subject of Climate Change can not be changed.
HeloMenelo
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 25, 2013
Question.... how does people like doug always get first or second comment priority on precisely these Topics ? And how many sock puppets of that kind are there...?
rug
1.7 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2013
how does people like doug always get first or second comment priority on precisely these Topics ?

Seems pretty obvious to me, they have nothing better to do.

And how many sock puppets of that kind are there...?


to many
Kron
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2013
"And you're a little fucking bitch!" - KronTard

Look TardieBoy. You are clearly an intellectual inferior and incapable of learning, what do you think you are accomplishing by being here along your intellectual superiors?

Is it your goal to demonstrate to the world how worthless and corrupt, American Conservatives are?


Shut the fuck up you stupid little bitch, nobody asked for your opinion. Go fuck yourself.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2013
So as the facts prove there isn't any global warming, you'll admit AGW is a belief then?


Take that graph and have it start from 1960. Oh there is the warming tend. Clear as a bell now isn't it. Trying to provide data out of context is just stupidity.


Since climate is measured over periods of at least 30 yrs then any graph with a period less than that showing a trend is not "climate".
http://www.woodfo....5/trend
Kron
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
When you can prove to me that life was not flourishing in the past when average global temperatures were 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today, I'll change my stance. It's as simple as that. This will not happen because we all know that warmer temperatures are good for both animal and plant life. Mating seasons and growing seasons fall into the warmer months of the year.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2013
When you can prove to me that life was not flourishing in the past when average global temperatures were 5 degrees Celsius warmer than today, I'll change my stance. It's as simple as that. This will not happen because we all know that warmer temperatures are good for both animal and plant life. Mating seasons and growing seasons fall into the warmer months of the year.


If you are talking about the Holocene Optimum - that was NOT global as it was due to the Earth being closest to the Sun in summer, not winter, as it is now. If you want to learn about the untruths in Moore's thesis then read the rebuttal by Pierrehumbert. Simply put - Humans are adapted to the current climate - any change from that will cause huge disruption at the very least.

sirchick
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2013
"Saying "humans are the cause" is not helpful "tard". Unless you suggest we wipe out all humans. " - Sir Tard

If the only solution to humans being the cause were to wipe out all humans, you would be right. But since human behavior can be changed, you are simply a monumental fool.

Do you intend to remain a fool for the rest of your life?



Then learn to read, this was my exact point. Spending money on constant research to say its us doing it when the money can be spent educating people to change behaviour is money much better spent.. so thanks for backing up my original claim. You did a full 180 ! :) Well done. Now go buy an xbox.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (25) Aug 25, 2013
Humans are adapted to the current climate - any change from that will cause huge disruption at the very least.


Define "any change",.. an increase over the prior century of 1.33*f is only psychologically perceptible to those desiring coercive social engineering but not perceptible enough to convince humans generally to voluntarily reduce their standard of living or personal expense, or accept a socialistic form of gov, in order to reduce the burning of carbon based energy.

That AGW advocates continue to complain about "AGW deniers" when there are enough true believers, to make a difference by using less carbon based energy sources, is a form of personal procrastination and unwillingness to reduce their own standard of living.

The number of co2 based cars made each year is accelerating, and countries like China are not going to make their growing economy contingent upon speculative theory,.... (speculative wrt to predictions. )
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (26) Aug 25, 2013
But since human behavior can be changed, you are simply a monumental fool.


Egoistic human behavior is intrinsic to our very nature, and can not be changed, ...only oppressed and regulated, by force and coercion. That each seeks his own self-interest and personal benefit is an evolutionary truth of nature, the force of which is responsible solely for our existing standard of living.

The solutions of the far left involve working against the grain of this force, because they have no substantive solutions.

Since the world economies float on a bed of oil/coal, alternatives must economically compete and be chosen freely, not because "it's the right thing to do for the planet", a naive and failing motive , but because it is in the best interest of the individual making the choice.
ThomasQuinn
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2013
My opinion is take responsibility for your own actions. I'm aware of the potential consequences of mine and am willing to pay them in order to continue living the lifestyle I'm accustomed to.

Let's say I fall into the 1% of the population that is content with the possibility of a temperature increase, storm ferocity and incidence increase, ocean level increase, etc. If 99% of you choose that these potential consequences are not worth your lifestyle, it is in your power to change the way you live. My 1% will continue to tribute, but 99% of the AGW problem will be gone.

The problem is none of you are actually willing to change the way you live. You want changes to happen but you are unwilling to make them.


What gives you any right whatsoever to ruin the world of later generations?
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2013
"I think that the IPCC has a tradition of being very conservative," Dr Field said.


I was unaware that Chicken Little had developed a sense humor. LOL

Every new article about AGW -- and who knows how many there are every day? -- detracts from the real problem we should be addressing which is population growth. No one wants to talk about that because it does not involve social redistribution of wealth and power.
Egleton
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2013
Guys, Guys. It is not as bad as you imagine.
It is a hell of a lot worse.
The sun converts hydrogen into helium. Helium causes the sun to heat up. In the 4.5 billion years of the suns life it has increased 35%.
The planet has managed to keep many parameters in homeostasis ever since it became alive.
It kept the temperature fairly constant with noticable whoopsie moments (Snowball Earth) by sequestering carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
It cannot do that trick any more. We are now down to 4% CO2.
And still the sun keeps getting hotter, causing the Goldilocks zone to move further out.
We are skirting the inner edge now.
And then the Ape/Pig hybrid discovered the sequestered carbon.
The reason the Ape\Pig lives and breaths is in order to lift the ecology off the rock where it is doomed and into a safe orbit.
We are a the last throw of the die.
If we fail the planet orbits Venuses Strange Attractor.
Egleton
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2013

Edit: The rock will become Venises sister planet. This is its inevatible fate.
We must have escaped by then.

Any complaints can be addressed to our star for not being reasonable.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (22) Aug 25, 2013
So as the facts prove there isn't any global warming, you'll admit AGW is a belief then?


Take that graph and have it start from 1960. Oh there is the warming tend. Clear as a bell now isn't it. Trying to provide data out of context is just stupidity.
So you'll admit then that trying to prove it IS warming by adding data from long since PAST warming, is just stupidity then?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
So as the facts prove there isn't any global warming, you'll admit AGW is a belief then?
Take that graph and have it start from 1960. Oh there is the warming tend. Clear as a bell now isn't it. Trying to provide data out of context is just stupidity.
Since climate is measured over periods of at least 30 yrs then any graph with a period less than that showing a trend is not "climate".
Funny, I don't see that in the general definition:

"cli·mate (klmt)
n.
1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.

2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions:"

And even the IPCC definition allows for "from months to thousands or millions of years." And goes on to state, "Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."

Ergo: The current state of the global climate is trending slightly toward cooling.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
Define "any change",.. an increase over the prior century of 1.33*f is only psychologically perceptible to those desiring coercive social engineering but not perceptible enough to convince humans generally to voluntarily reduce their standard of living or personal expense, or accept a socialistic form of gov, in order to reduce the burning of carbon based energy.

That AGW advocates continue to complain about "AGW deniers" when there are enough true believers, to make a difference by using less carbon based energy sources, is a form of personal procrastination and unwillingness to reduce their own standard of living.

The number of co2 based cars made each year is accelerating, and countries like China are not going to make their growing economy contingent upon speculative theory,.... (speculative wrt to predictions. )
Well said!

rug
2.2 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2013
So you'll admit then that trying to prove it IS warming by adding data from long since PAST warming, is just stupidity then?

What is it with dumbasses and trying to twist words around? You know what, not even gonna bother. I'm done trying to convince idiots. It does no good as you are incapable of learning. Guess when the storms get to harsh and frequent, ocean levels get to high, and most of the land mass is desert you might admit you was wrong. I bet you wont. I say screw it, it's not worth it. Might as well let all the dumasses kill them selves. Solves the population issue and then we might be able to do something about the climate then.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2013
I say screw it, it's not worth it. Might as well let all the dumasses kill them selves. Solves the population issue and then we might be able to do something about the climate then


Is depopulation not the aim of agenda 21? (No. I haven't bothered to read it) Nice bit of propaganda though.
It goes like this. The climate catastrophe will kill off the most vulnerable. Therefore our policy is to deny its existence. (For the same reason Bob Mugabe denied the existence of AIDS. And you thought he was thick?)
Further, we can blame climate change on the nasty cabal of climatologists to deflect rage.
Truly they are Ubermenschen.
I can see their reasoning because I have a nice Prussian bloodline. You dont survive in that neck of the woods without evolution working its magic on you.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (25) Aug 25, 2013
What is it with dumbasses and trying to twist words around? You know what, not even gonna bother. I'm done trying to convince idiots. It does no good as you are incapable of learning. Guess when the storms get to harsh and frequent, ocean levels get to high, and most of the land mass is desert you might admit you was wrong. I bet you wont. I say screw it, it's not worth it. Might as well let all the dumasses kill them selves. Solves the population issue and then we might be able to do something about the climate then.
I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Besides, how can both, "storms get too harsh and frequent" and, "most of the land mass is desert" be true? You do know that storms bring rain, don't you?

And did you not know the general current trend is that deserts are diminishing (greening), and the biosphere is booming?

And besides simply whining about it, what are YOU doing for the environment?

Egleton
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2013

And besides simply whining about it, what are YOU doing for the environment?


I ride a bicycle to work and have since I was a young man. I never eat red meat, but I can do beans in all sorts of ways. I never throw food away. I buy cabages in bulk and make sauerkraut so that I eat every leaf. I have a small second hand yacht to live on and harvest all my energy from the environment. I never have more than one light on at a time. I wear all my cloths out.

What do you do?

Noumenon
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
My opinion is take responsibility for your own actions. I'm aware of the potential consequences of mine and am willing to pay them in order to continue living the lifestyle I'm accustomed to.[...]

The problem is none of you are actually willing to change the way you live. You want changes to happen but you are unwilling to make them.


What gives you any right whatsoever to ruin the world of later generations?


The vast majority of AGW cataclysmists are progressive liberals, who advocate aborting future generations.

His egoism is his natural right. It is an unavoidable natural instinct of human nature to pursue ones own interest. Egoism once allowed freedom to play-out in the arena of capitalism, has done more to improve the human condition than any planned socialist one ever could.

The best thing he can do for AGW, is to pursue his own self-interest and fight against forces that wish to oppress his nature, as the market will be the arbiter of alternatives.
Tessellatedtessellations
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
WTF, did Rush and the Kochs issue a call to their mindless idiots to "Send in the Clowns?" Why is it that every time a global warming article is posted, hundreds of fools show up to spout lies?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (22) Aug 25, 2013

And besides simply whining about it, what are YOU doing for the environment?


I ride a bicycle to work and have since I was a young man. I never eat red meat, but I can do beans in all sorts of ways. I never throw food away. I buy cabages in bulk and make sauerkraut so that I eat every leaf. I have a small second hand yacht to live on and harvest all my energy from the environment. I never have more than one light on at a time. I wear all my cloths out.

What do you do?


Do you want to force others to live like you?
That's what AGWites want to do, except, of course for their high priests like AlGore.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2013
Egoism once allowed freedom to play-out in the arena of capitalism, has done more to improve the human condition than any planned socialist one ever could.


S Greed is good?
So you Yanks still think that you have free market capitalism? Has anyone explained that to one Big Bank Bailout Ben Bernanke?

The banks get their loans at 0%. How much do you pay? The USA is the last country to be preaching about free market capitalism.

The mafiosi meme is alive and well in land of supersized french fries. I see that Rossi still cannot get a patent. Any ideas why not? Better ask the Godfather. He will tell you not to be silly.

Egleton
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2013

Do you want to force others to live like you?[q/]
No- But you did ask.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
And besides simply whining about it, what are YOU doing for the environment?
I ride a bicycle to work and have since I was a young man. I never eat red meat, but I can do beans in all sorts of ways. I never throw food away. I buy cabages in bulk and make sauerkraut so that I eat every leaf. I have a small second hand yacht to live on and harvest all my energy from the environment. I never have more than one light on at a time. I wear all my cloths out.
Funny, there's nothing in there about all your obvious computer use. You do know the internet infrastructure uses tons of energy, right? How about your worksite? Do you not use any energy there? What else are you not telling us?

What do you do?
Environmental protection is both my avocation, and my profession.

Egleton
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2013
Ohh. We are feeling defensive-aren't we?

Come on. I showed you mine. Now you show me yours.
rug
2.3 / 5 (18) Aug 25, 2013
Environmental protection is both my avocation, and my profession.

Then you are the worst of all. Your job is to protect the environment but then you think a changing climate is not going to affect it? WOW!

I think we just found The Alpha Dumbass.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2013
An Alpha Dumass, no less. I am so hurt!
I shall have to tell my drill sergent that one.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 25, 2013
So you Yanks still think that you have free market capitalism?

The US has been a socialist state for over 100 years.
FDR was quite fond of Fascism praising it's creator, Mussolini.
Enron was quite eager to have the Kyoto Treaty implemented so they could sell natural gas and carbon credits.
There are many other crony 'capitalists' eagerly rent seeking from various govts to cash in on AGW regulations.
Financial incentives for AGWite supporters are quite large.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2013
Environmental protection is both my avocation, and my profession.
Then you are the worst of all. Your job is to protect the environment but then you think a changing climate is not going to affect it? WOW!
First it needs to be established the climate is significantly changing, mankind is largely to blame for the changing environment, the changes are dominantly detrimental to the environment, and mankind can realistically and practicably do anything about it.

None of these criteria are met.

I think we just found The Alpha Dumbass.
Looked in the mirror, did you? Poor fool.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (22) Aug 25, 2013
Egoism once allowed freedom to play-out in the arena of capitalism, has done more to improve the human condition than any planned socialist one ever could.


[So] Greed is good?

You caricature it as "greed" because you are emotionally driven and idealistic like a typical bed wetting liberal,.. and not one who is objective in seeking to understand nature. Egoism is what I am describing. Seeking profit and creating wealth has done more to advance the human condition than any other conceived by man.

Even Obama can pretend to understand this,... "the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - B. Obama

So you Yanks still think that you have free market capitalism? Has anyone explained that to one Big Bank Bailout Ben Bernanke?


I never said "free market capitalism", ...you did. That is the ideal however.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Aug 25, 2013
An Alpha Dumass, no less. I am so hurt!
I shall have to tell my drill sergent that one.
So you're in the military, and you proclaim you're environmentally conscious? LOL. The military's carbon footprint is huge! In the U.S., the military is responsible for 80 percent of all the energy guzzled by the entire U.S. government.

And I'm the "dumass" (sic)?

anti-geoengineering
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2013
A great cycle of time that everyone wants to make money off of. We can't stop it but we should/are trying to manage it. Let us pray it's not in the wrong hands!
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2013
So you'll admit then that trying to prove it IS warming by adding data from long since PAST warming, is just stupidity then?

What is it with dumbasses and trying to twist words around? You know what, not even gonna bother. I'm done trying to convince idiots. It does no good as you are incapable of learning....

rug:
You've just met a particular poster that it is impossible to argue against - do like me a a few others on here and don't bother. You will find yourself constantly arguing down at idiot level only to be beaten because he is more experienced.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2013
An Alpha Dumass, no less. I am so hurt!
I shall have to tell my drill sergent that one.


If you're going call someone a dumb-ass, you're going to want to spell it correctly, least it back fire on you.
rug
1.8 / 5 (14) Aug 25, 2013
I think I also said, THE alpha dumbass
Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2013
@ rug,

I sent ya a PM, did ya receive it?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2013
rug
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2013
@ rug,

I sent ya a PM, did ya receive it?


Didn't see it until you mentioned it lol
rug
2.2 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
Besides, how can both, "storms get too harsh and frequent" and, "most of the land mass is desert" be true? You do know that storms bring rain, don't you?

Do you not realize the earth is a large place compared to humans? Increase storms along the coast does not mean the expansive land masses in between will get rain. I think you just proved how much of a dumbass you are. It's common sense. I mean a storm in Florida doesn't mean Egypt gets rain. What kind of uneducated, religious, putting your head in the sand, moron would even think for a second you can't have deserts and more storms. WE HAVE THEM ALL READY DUMBASS!

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Just to prove correctness of this quote, it's been found the universe is not infinite.
rikvanriel
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2013
"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,"

This is a huge change. Previously the amount of warming attributed to human influence was about 150% of observed warming.
Wolf358
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2013
First, we only occupy the land mass of the Earth, and not all of that due to habitability. Land mass is what? 30% of the surface? We can't use a lot of it anyway, deserts etc. Next, we can't live much more than a mile down (heat) and how high up we can live is limited by atmospheric pressure (too low). So our _habitable world_ is only a tiny tiny fraction of the earth. All of Humanity lives in a _very_ small world. A thin skim of surface scum compared to the Whole planet. Have we poisoned and toxified the livable bits? Yes. Can we make all the habitable area uninhabitable? Heck, yes. Are we in the process of ruining the tiny part of the planet in which humanity can survive? Heck, yes. It's time for humanity to grow up and face facts. We're screwing the future, and it's well within our capabilities to pretend nothing is wrong while we take the ecosystem _down_... If I were an "Evil Genius", I'd be taking credit for it.
JohnGee
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2013
An Alpha Dumass, no less. I am so hurt!
I shall have to tell my drill sergent that one.


If you're going call someone a dumb-ass, you're going to want to spell it correctly, least it back fire on you.


You might also want to check your spelling, lest it backfire on you.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 25, 2013
You've just met a particular poster that it is impossible to argue against - do like me a a few others on here and don't bother.
Looky there. Even the AGWite chatterbots are afraid of me now. How pathetic is that? What's the matter? ...can't find the facts to support your arguments?

runrig = loser AGW chatterbot.

rug
2 / 5 (15) Aug 25, 2013
^^Just another troll
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2013
An Alpha Dumass, no less. I am so hurt!
I shall have to tell my drill sergent that one.


If you're going call someone a dumb-ass, you're going to want to spell it correctly, least it back fire on you.


You might also want to check your spelling, lest it backfire on you.


I didn't make a spelling error. I made a word usage error. In any case, it appears i've been hoisted by my own petard.
JohnGee
1.8 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2013
You still have to be right, even when you admit you are wrong.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 25, 2013
But I'll make an exception this once.....
Are we having trouble understanding what a general definition is? Did you try the Oxford dictionary? Hmm, no mention of 30 years there...

Even so, 30 years is most frequently used as a base period to describe statistical averages for specific regions, this averaging does not necessarily reflect what is currently occurring.

Some quotes from your own references:

WMO:

"ranging from months to thousands or millions of years"

NASA:

"there are shorter term climate variations."

Wikipedia:

"but other periods may be used depending on the purpose"

EPA:

"from months to thousands of years"

IPCC:

"months to thousands or millions of years"

NSIDC:

"We talk about climate change in terms of years, decades, and centuries"

RMS:

"over a period of time"

Merriam-Webster:

"from one month to many millions of years"

See? Even your own references don't support your contention that climate must be described in 30 year increments.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
You still have to be right, even when you admit you are wrong.


Can't help it. You stated that I made a spelling mistake. There was none. So it seems you can't admit you were wrong, while I can and did.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2013
Do you not realize the earth is a large place compared to humans? Increase storms along the coast does not mean the expansive land masses in between will get rain.
Oh, so now all of a sudden, to increase desertification, whole swaths of the globe will see decreased storm activity? Isn't this the opposite of your claim? Just where are these supposed swaths? How is this magic possible? How do the raging storms know to stop at the flooding/desert demarcation?

I think you just proved how much of a dumbass you are. It's common sense. I mean a storm in Florida doesn't mean Egypt gets rain. What kind of uneducated, religious, putting your head in the sand, moron would even think for a second you can't have deserts and more storms. WE HAVE THEM ALL READY DUMBASS!
Generally speaking, you can't have MORE storms and MORE deserts, dumbass.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 25, 2013
"It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,"

This is a huge change. Previously the amount of warming attributed to human influence was about 150% of observed warming.
LOL. Good one.

I suppose the ever increasing CO2 compared with the uncooperative global temperature, must be a disappointment to them.

rug
1.9 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
The more you talk the most stupid you sound. How about you take your debunked beliefs off of science websites since you obviously have no interest in science or the capacity to learn about science.

In the end it comes down to this. When you are begging for water or being pounded by hurricanes while all the scientific minded people are living perfectly happy healthy lives. I will be sure to not provide you with any help. You will just have to figure it out on your own.

The only thing really wrong with the world today is people like you.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 25, 2013
The more you talk the most stupid you sound. How about you take your debunked beliefs off of science websites since you obviously have no interest in science or the capacity to learn about science.
So where's YOUR science? My science is clear:
http://www.woodfo....6/trend

In the end it comes down to this. When you are begging for water or being pounded by hurricanes while all the scientific minded people are living perfectly happy healthy lives. I will be sure to not provide you with any help. You will just have to figure it out on your own.
Maybe I'll just build a home on this magical demarcation line and catch drinking water on my back porch, and watch the sunset from my front porch. LOL

The only thing really wrong with the world today is people like you.
If that's alI, I guess we must be in pretty good shape then ...except for the control freaks, like you.

Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2013
So where's YOUR science? My science is clear:
http://www.woodfo....6/trend


Well at least ya were honest enough link the little app that ya call your "science". One problem ya didn't account for. Out of all the different data sets ya can use to toy around with in that app, only two actually support your claims. All the other parametrics and data sets give various results, a few similar to yours, most slightly disagreeing with ya, and more than a few results that are very different from yours.

Did ya even try using the other data sets to see if it there was consistency in how ya were interpreting the results? Or did someone "give" that to ya to post as rebuttal?
Gmr
3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2013
I never said "free market capitalism", ...you did. That is the ideal however.

I have to take issue and say this is not the ideal. Complete or near-complete "laissez faire" capitalism is what caused the financial crisis. No regulation means things fail in catastrophic circumstances, and fail hard.

We supposedly had enough of "free market capitalism" as the ideal in 1929. But people forget. People forget that people are greedy, selfish short-sighted addicts who cannot get enough of money, even when they have it all. There is no limiter on the complete free market other than total failure.

Oddly enough, that doesn't work for a lot of people.

So you have regulation, to slow down crashes and catastrophes so they can be mitigated somewhat. Does this hurt competitiveness? Yes, in the short run. In the mad dash to new "sources" of income like bookkeeping tricks, we will lag behind. But we also won't be towed under with the next crisis.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2013
Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says

Like honey to the flies, you knew that this would pack the house with Global warming dim bulbs. You bunch of looser deniers need to live on a farm somewhere and get outdoors for a change instead of living in mama's basement.

rug
1.9 / 5 (16) Aug 25, 2013
@Howhot - Na, thats not going to do any good. Once the planet gets to hot just move them into one of the new deserts. Don't give them any help or supplies. Let them fend for themselves. Since there will be no new deserts according to them it's a perfect solution with the added benefit of reducing the human population.
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 25, 2013
Egoism is what I am describing. Seeking profit and creating wealth has done more to advance the human condition than any other conceived by man.

At the mercy of contrived 'market forces' isn't bad enough, but megalomania too?

That's a primitive, narrow minded, short sighted perception and an ill-conceived glamorization of ill-gotten gains. The most intelligent way is starting with 'one planet, one species' and then applying the scientific method. It's also the most truly economical way. No one's charging us for the sunlight, and no one's charging us rent for the planet. We should have off-world habitats on the moon and mars by now. Unless the species thinks it's wise keeping all the eggs in one basket.

Much easier to destroy a climate than it is to build and maintain one. Good to see quite a few here are concerned with the latter. It's evident the flint-peddling egotistical Neanderthals are concerned only with their bottom line.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Well at least ya were honest enough link the little app that ya call your "science". One problem ya didn't account for. Out of all the different data sets ya can use to toy around with in that app, only two actually support your claims. All the other parametrics and data sets give various results, a few similar to yours, most slightly disagreeing with ya, and more than a few results that are very different from yours.
Sure, some of the results vary, but the one I used was the one originally created to sound the alarm on climate change. If it was good enough then, why isn't it good enough now?

And the rest of the global data sets generally agree there's been cooling for at least a dozen years (if not longer).

Here's a composite of several data sets showing cooling for the last dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

So over all, it's at least accurate to state warming is currently on hiatus.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
Did ya even try using the other data sets to see if it there was consistency in how ya were interpreting the results?
Certainly, I've used them all.

You can also access raw data sets from the various original source pages and graph them yourself on your own graphing program. Woofortrees.org is just particularly convenient.

Or did someone "give" that to ya to post as rebuttal?
I found that site in references posted on this site. I think MikeyK was the first to bring it to phys.org, here.

It looks like my first use of it was on Oct 30, 2011, here. There you can see from my first use, I experimented with multiple data sets.

Do you have a problem with the woodfortrees.org site?

antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2013
The most intelligent way is starting with 'one planet, one species' and then applying the scientific method.

While I wholeheartedly agree with this I also must acknowledge that it doesn't work (as much as the pure-profit approach doesn't work)
For this simple reason:
Unless the species thinks it's wise keeping all the eggs in one basket.

The 'species' does't think. On a biological (species) level we only react (by means of evolution). What 'we' think is what individuals think. And some individuals are better at rallying others to their cause.

This is why we're running into hardheaded people when it comes to species-wide threats (global warming, asteroid impact, etc. ) who will not agree to save the species, because they can't see further than their own checkbook.

Fortunately there is such a thing as debate. And in debates facts eventually win (which usually leads to the losing side opting for violence - but that's anothertopic)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2013
save the species,

But at the expense of other individuals.
That's the problem with socialism. When you can't get 100% participation, the state must use force and possibly kill some who don't want to play nice with socialists.
Since the AGWites don't and can never have facts, only speculative models, on their side, they will always lose and need to resort to force.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change, IPCC leaked report says

Like honey to the flies, you knew that this would pack the house with Global warming dim bulbs. You bunch of looser deniers need to live on a farm somewhere and get outdoors for a change instead of living in mama's basement.


Hmmm.... the stupid is strong in this one.
antialias_physorg
3.1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2013
save the species,

But at the expense of other individuals.

And you do not understand that if the species doesn't survive then individuals don't, either? That 'saving individuals' means nothing in this case because you're not saving them?

Is that really such incredibly hard logic?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
I never said "free market capitalism", ...you did. That is the ideal however.


I have to take issue and say this is not the ideal. Complete or near-complete "laissez faire" capitalism is what caused the financial crisis.


You are misinformed. The major cause of the financial crisis was the housing bubble, caused by government pressuring banks to weaken lending qualification standards, resulting in a sub-prime mortgages market. Then the government bailed out the banks. None of that is laissez faire capitalism.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
I never said "free market capitalism", ...you did. That is the ideal however.
People forget that people are greedy, selfish short-sighted addicts who cannot get enough of money, even when they have it all.


As I pointed out, that is an unavoidable and necessary component of human nature. It is not a bad thing, it is a GOOD thing. It is the natural mechanism that evolves species, and economies. Competition, profit motive, and creating wealth is absolutely necessary for strong economies.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
You caricature it as "greed" because you're emotionally driven [...] Egoism is what I am describing. Seeking profit and creating wealth has done more to advance the human condition than any other conceived by man.


At the mercy of contrived 'market forces' isn't bad enough, but megalomania too?


I never said "megalomania". That was your emotional interpretation of what was meant by 'egoism' above.

The context should have made it clear, that the definition of egoism as used by me was that 'individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action'.

That's a primitive, narrow minded, short sighted perception and an ill-conceived glamorization of ill-gotten gains.


It is typical of liberals to be emotionally driven and not objective and scientifically minded in analyzing what mechanisms have improved the human condition and sustains economies,... thus they use such subjective moral qualifications to obscure what is in essence, sublime nature.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
The 'species' does't think. On a biological (species) level we only react (by means of evolution). What 'we' think is what individuals think. And some individuals are better at rallying others to their cause.

This is why we're running into hardheaded people when it comes to species-wide threats (global warming, asteroid impact, etc. ) who will not agree to save the species, because they can't see further than their own checkbook.


I'm impressed that as a seeming liberal guy, you have stumbled upon this truth.

It is why I've been saying, there must be some tangible effect to respond to. That alternatives must compete with oil/coal, and be chosen out of the best interest of individuals, not pie-in-the-sky theory of speculative cataclysm. That working counter to human egoistic tendencies, as social engineering does, will NOT work, because it works counter to the grain of an enormous natural force. History is replete with such attempts as abject examples.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
The most intelligent way is starting with 'one planet, one species' and then applying the scientific method.


But the far left who wish to use AGW to institute social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and anti-capitalistic policies, are not using the "scientific method" at all.

No one who comprehended human nature and the natural force of freedom, liberty, and egoism,... work seek to work counter to it,... but instead would take advantage of it. They would understand this immense force with only a objective cursory glance at western standard of living and how it came about.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
save the species,

But at the expense of other individuals.

And you do not understand that if the species doesn't survive then individuals don't, either? That 'saving individuals' means nothing in this case because you're not saving them?

Is that really such incredibly hard logic?

How many do you wish to kill to save the species?
Instead of centrally planned state socialism why not remove state shackles and let millions of individuals innovate and adapt to any changing climate? It has worked for the species for tens of thousands of years, and even better in the last few hundred.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
save the species,

But at the expense of other individuals.

And you do not understand that if the species doesn't survive then individuals don't, either? That 'saving individuals' means nothing in this case because you're not saving them?
Saving who, from what? What imminent threat does the climate pose (rhetorical)? None!

AGWite: "Oh no! The ocean has risen another millimeter! I'm drowning!"

Skeptic: "Walk upshore a step."

AGWite: "Oh no! It's raining, and I'm drowning!"

Skeptic: "Here, have an umbrella."

AGWite: "Oh no, it stopped raining, and I'm dehydrating!"

Skeptic: "Here, have a glass of water."

AGWite: "It's hot out here today and I'm dying of heat stroke."

Skeptic: "Go inside and take a cool bath."

AGWite: "It's snowing and I'm freezing to death!"

Skeptic: "Here, have my coat."

Seriously, that's about all there is to it. It's nothing but a bunch of Chicken Littles, afraid of the weather!

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013
How many do you wish to kill to save the species?

Obviously none. And I don't really see why it should be necessary to kill anyone (except maybe if someone were out to kill the species himself. Then it would be him or the rest. But that's more of a Hollywood scenario than reality).
I think you're idea that anyone would die just because we institute some sensible measures to preserve the species is ludicrous.

This 'total socialism'-idea of yours is the textbook definition of a false dichotomy
http://en.wikiped..._dilemma

There have been a lot of global laws/convetions that didn't bring about total socialism or mass death (Geneva conventions, trade agreements, etc. )
why not remove state shackles and let millions of individuals innovate and adapt to any changing climate?

Because humans adapt on a different timescale than the climate? And this time we don't have tens of thousands of years? Duh.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
And this time we don't have tens of thousands of years?

Humans have been adapting to rapid and slow climate changes for tens of thousands of years.
Ten thousand years ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. My ancestors, and likely yours, adapted, following the retreating ice.
institute some sensible measures

What is sensible?
I think sensible is promoting more nuclear power and promoting more energy production in general. Without energy, there can be no innovation and adaptation.
AGWites promote socialist solutions to limit, not expand energy production.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
" On the contrary, what frustrates Al and the snake-oil industry is that the skeptics can no longer be shut out of the conversation. "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority," Kenneth P. Green, a former member of the U.N. panel, predicted three years ago.

Another former panelist, Dr. Kimimori Itoh, a Japanese physical chemist, calls the phenomenon "the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

That's too bad, because when science and scientists one day discover a genuine crisis, nobody will listen. We're up to our ears already in snake oil."

http://www.washin...ake-oil/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2013
AGW policies kill:
"No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive "
" Much political attention is still focused on global warming, and while schemes to help Britain prepare for the cold are being cut, the overseas aid budget is being vastly expanded. Saving elderly British lives has somehow become the least fashionable cause in politics. "
http://www.telegr...out.html
runrig
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2013
WMO/IPCC/EPA:
"..The classical period is 30 years"
NASA:
"... usually taken over 30-years".
National Snow & Ice Data Centre:
"....averaged over a period of time, often 30 years".
Wiki:
"...The standard averaging period is 30 years"
The Royal Met Society:
"..Climate is usually defined FOR different seasons or months, and AVERAGED over a period of 30 years – currently the period 1971-2000 is used."
NDIC:
"...from one month to many millions of years, but generally 30 years"
Webster
"...over a long period of time (from one month to many millions of years, but GENERALLY 30 years)
UKMO:
"..monthly, seasonal and annual averages.. covering the 30-year averaging periods, 1961–1990, 1971–2000 and 1981–2010".

30 yrs is chosen as a sensible period so that overlying climate cycles can play out and variation from the natural determined. For the purpose of AGW then we must eliminate ENSO/PDO cycles in particular and 16 years will not do that.
It may suite your purposes but not the science.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2013
Instead of centrally planned state socialism why not remove state shackles and let millions of individuals innovate and adapt to any changing climate? It has worked for the species for tens of thousands of years, and even better in the last few hundred.


Because they cant. Individuals do not control power grids or make solar panels or fund science to find better materials for PV systems (eg). If individuals come up with something in their garden shed and try to sell it to the petrochemical companies (say water-splitting/hydrogen technology) - it'll not see the light of day, now will it, not with them grasping petroDollars. In short Government initiatives are needed to kick-start and drive innovation (of this complexity/universality).
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
I think [your] idea that anyone would die just because we institute some sensible measures to preserve the species is ludicrous.

This 'total socialism'-idea of yours is the textbook definition of a false dichotomy.


It merely counters the false dichotomy of the notion of Cataclysmic climate change.

Also, the political far left, the anti-capitalists, anti-consumption, and social engineering proponents, are the ones promoting the AGW alarmist rhetoric, the elevated hype of which would evidently require more than mere "sensible measures", as they readily admit.

Had it only been about sensible measures to limit polluting of the planet, there would not have been such a backlash of "deniers". Don't blame the "denier's", blame the far left.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2013

Humans have been adapting to rapid and slow climate changes for tens of thousands of years.
Ten thousand years ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. My ancestors, and likely yours, adapted, following the retreating ice.


Right, scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers are an analogy to modern, worldwide civilisation?
They only had to adapt by moving where the climate was most beneficial, by walking or riding beasts.
We have a whole lot more that will need adapting/shifting.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
We have a whole lot more that will need adapting/shifting.

Like what and why is centrally planned, top down socialism the best way?
They only had to adapt by moving where the climate was most beneficial,

People move all the time to climates better suited to them.
Some are escaping economic climates imposed by central planners.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
Instead of centrally planned state socialism why not remove state shackles and let millions of individuals innovate and adapt to any changing climate?


Because they cant. Individuals do not control power grids or make solar panels or fund science to find better materials for PV systems (eg). If individuals come up with something in their garden shed and try to sell it to the petrochemical companies (say water-splitting/hydrogen technology) - it'll not see the light of day, now will it, not with them grasping petroDollars.


This is a fallacy.

Investors don't care if their profits come from specifically oil. They will put their money where ever the potential for profit exists. Investors don't love oil, they love its consumption.

The only thing that is essential in bringing alternatives to market is the profit potential. This is where the individual has all the power in directing the next energy source, in his free choice for his benefit, and consumption.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
Government initiatives are needed to kick-start and drive innovation

Govt did nothing to spur the oil industry to create clean burning standard kerosene.

How does the govt know what is best? How much innovation was wasted on Solydra and dozens of other companies that are bankrupt?
Why must there be an electric grid? There was fierce competition for electric business before the govt stepped in and enabled monopoly control over power distribution. It was govt policy that created the present power distribution system. Why do they want to give up that control?
Real innovation is never motivated by the govt. Only by individuals seeking to EARN a profit.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2013
Govt did nothing to spur the oil industry to create clean burning standard kerosene.


Didn't need to as there was nothing to compete with (clean-burning lamps) no-brainer. Very different now.

Governments don't "know best" any more than an individual does. It just has the mandate to act in a Democratic system ( well this one anyway ). Parties put their intentions of what they will do in government before an election and they are voted in/out on the basis of that. The people as a majority give the mandate to "know best".
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2013
Investors don't care if their profits come from specifically oil. They will put their money where ever the potential for profit exists. Investors don't love oil, they love its consumption.


Precisely - which is why an alternative to oil will never get off the ground without help (providing it doesn't get too expensive). And why a fantastic invention by a maverick will disappear - there won't be the momentum behind it to overcome investor's doubts and put money behind it.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
"And why a fantastic invention by a maverick will disappear - there won't be the momentum behind it to overcome investor's doubts and put money behind it."

If you are talking about cold fusion, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Otherwise, there is no lack of funding for new energy or efficiency technologies where the inventor can prove a concept that could lower costs or prove to be profitable without government subsidies. That is the way that business works, show business a clear way to make a profit in the future and the money will follow.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
Didn't need to as there was nothing to compete with (clean-burning lamps) no-brainer.

It was called sperm whale oil from sperm whales. That industry was very profitable and if they had the lobby power don't you think they would have tried to crush clean kerosene?
But then Thomas Edison invented a light bulb.
So we have crony 'capitalist' industries, and environmental PACS that have significant influence on a govt that is supposed to kick start innovation?
Right now Duke Energy is very happy they can charge more for electricity because BHO is killing coal.
Enron push Clinton form Kyoto to sell more natural gas.
Drilling is banned in much of the US raising the cost of oil.
The govt is supposed to certify Yucca Mtn for nuke waste storage and refused to obey the law.
How is govt going to 'kick start' innovation? It can't get out of its own way.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
"The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 says the NRC "shall consider" the Yucca Mountain application to become a repository, and "shall" approve or disapprove the application within three years of its submission. "Shall" means "must." The application, submitted in June 2008, has not been acted upon, and the court said: "By its own admission, the Commission has no current intention of complying with the law.""
""Former (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko orchestrated a systematic campaign of noncompliance. Jaczko unilaterally ordered Commission staff to terminate the review process in October 2010; instructed staff to remove key findings from reports evaluating the Yucca Mountain site; and ignored the will of his fellow Commissioners.""
http://articles.w...mountain
MR166
1.9 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
There are a lot of new nuclear technologies that show promise but who in their right mind would dare invest in them with today's political climate. Try to build any sort of nuclear power plant in the US and be prepared to spend billions for permits before the first shovelful of earth is moved. Then, after you build the plant, good luck getting a permit to operate it.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
"Reid seems uninterested in the metallurgy of waste containment vessels or the geology of the mountain's 40 miles of storage tunnels where the waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground on 1,000 feet of rock. Rather, Reid, like almost all Nevadans, regards the repository as a threat to Las Vegas, a gambling destination that lives off tourists who are demonstrably irrational about probabilities. Reid prefers the status quo — more than 160 million Americans living within 75 miles of one or more of the 121 locations where more than 70,000 tons of nuclear waste are kept."
http://articles.w...mountain
This is the govt from which you expect innovation?
MR166
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
All of that 70K Tons is fantastic material for a dirty bomb. So we have to guard 121 locations instead of 1.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2013
If you are talking about cold fusion, don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Otherwise, there is no lack of funding for new energy or efficiency technologies where the inventor can prove a concept that could lower costs or prove to be profitable without government subsidies.


I'm not.
The economies of scale are far too large to overcome without incentives, the inertia too great. you're effectively saying leave everything alone until the "market" finds a better alternative. But "better" to the market is only ever cheaper/more profitable. Where is the paradigm changing technology going to come from to compete with oil/gas. Nothing stands a chance (unless/until we run out or physics is confounded). People have a chance to vote for who reflects their belief on AGW. If there is a mandate for change even though the market does not see that change as more profitable, then tough - the individual has spoken ( by majority) and given his backing. That's why I'm on here.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Drilling for oil and gas is getting more expensive every day and change is inevitable. BTW much of the AGW position does not reduce the use of hydrocarbons in the slightest when you consider all of the energy costs involved from cradle to grave and the economic value of the energy produced. Certainly things like carbon sequester and bio fuels are of no help at all if the total picture is considered. Electric cars are another "solution" that do not make sense from an energy standpoint. The AGW position only is valid if man's contribution to the CO2 balance is enough to do real harm and not just contribute a few tenths of a degree to the normal climate delta.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
The economies of scale are far too large to overcome without incentives,

The scale of the economics is quite an incentive.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
Runrig if AWG can be proven to be a REAL threat to the long term welfare of man then the steps that the governments are taking today are laudable!

If not, it is still necessary to fund new energy technologies just as it is necessary to fund all basic research.

But, without a real and provable AGW threat, I do have a problem funding massive renewable energy projects that are not cost effective in today's $$$$.

As a world economy we only have a limited amount of wealth and every dollar that we waste on unneeded projects is that much less that is left over to support the people.

Can you see that "Wealth" is finite and that if it is wasted on things that are not cost effective then everyone suffers in the long run.
rug
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2013
Can we really afford not to spend the money? Worst case we spend the money and nothing happens. Best case, we save ourselves and the rest of the environment. I think the rewards of spending the money greatly outweigh the cost of not spending.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
"....averaged over a period of time, often 30 years".
Wiki:
"...The standard averaging period is 30 years"
The Royal Met Society:
"..Climate is usually defined FOR different seasons or months, and AVERAGED over a period of 30 years – currently the period 1971-2000 is used." Stupid chatterbot, how is this different than what I said? You're just focusing on the 30 years, and ignoring the rest.

30 yrs is chosen as a sensible period so that overlying climate cycles can play out and variation from the natural determined.
Like I said, the 30 year period is averaged as a base to compare current weather and trends against.

For the purpose of AGW then we must eliminate ENSO/PDO cycles in particular and 16 years will not do that. It may suite your purposes but not the science.
Moron, not even 30 years would eliminate ENSO/AMO/PDO and various other climate cycles.

And trying to hide that the globe is cooling, and has been for some time, is CERTAINLY NOT scientific.

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 26, 2013
Well documented threats such as asteroids, tsunamis, earthquakes don't seem to motivate immediate govt actions to mitigate or prevent calamity.
As with asteroids, there is real data showing how asteroid impacts wiped out most life on earth, many times, yet there is little hue and cry from the science community to create an asteroid defense to save humanity.
The treat is well documented, mitigation techniques are straightforward, yet there is no equivalent 'Chicken Little' response from those who assert AGW demands state control of the world to save humanity.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Humans have been adapting to rapid and slow climate changes for tens of thousands of years.
Ten thousand years ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. My ancestors, and likely yours, adapted, following the retreating ice.


Right, scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers are an analogy to modern, worldwide civilisation?
They only had to adapt by moving where the climate was most beneficial, by walking or riding beasts.
We have a whole lot more that will need adapting/shifting.
Last I looked, not only have people moved into every climate niche available on Earth, people have even began adapting to living in the vacuum of space. And we certainly didn't need thousands of years to do that.

AGWites are nothing but Chicken Littles, afraid of the weather.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Can we really afford not to spend the money? Worst case we spend the money and nothing happens. Best case, we save ourselves and the rest of the environment. I think the rewards of spending the money greatly outweigh the cost of not spending.

Whose money is it? BTW, the money WILL be spent. The question is what will that wealth NOT be spent on? Ever hear of the broken window fallacy in economics?
If the socialists kill economic growth, there will be no wealth for them to plunder to 'save humanity' from uncertain climate changes.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
"Worst case we spend the money and nothing happens."

Rug there is only a limited amount of man hours of work available to pay the bills. If you waste them on something that is not needed then you cannot afford things like food or shelter.
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2013
OK, so when most of the population is dead...keep that in mind. It doesn't make sense to spend the money.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2013
OK, so when most of the population is dead...keep that in mind. It doesn't make sense to spend the money.


Rug there are 1000's of ways to spend $$$$ but only a limited few actually help mankind and since there is a limited supply of $$$$ we need to be very careful when deciding what to spend them on. It seems, that there are an almost unlimited supply of people that are willing to take these $$$$ from us and not all of them have the best interests of mankind in heart!
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2013
It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years. Unless you think science is fake, in which case you have no business on this site, this temperature rise cannot be argued.

You might not believe some of the predictions that have came from this. You might not believe CO2 is the cause. You might not even believe us stupid humans have anything to with it.

Lets say for just a moment that everything will happen that has been predicted. Just for argument's sake and we don't do anything to prevent it. On the worst case scenario we are talking billions of people dead. Most of the life on this planet dead. Now realise for a second that you, and everyone else has the power to stop it from happening. Wouldn't make all that death our fault? I think it would.

So when the worst case does happen. People going to blame everyone that claimed it wasn't happening. In a world crisis situation punishment won't be jail or prison....
rug
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 26, 2013
Now, if you are going to be one of the people that don't want to do anything to help humanity in general. Thats fine, your time will come. People always seem to get what they deserve.

I do what I can, and really thats all I can do.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
"It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years."

Sorry to burst your bubble but AGW is not really a factor in that before the 40s since fossil fuel usage before then was minimal. In reality, man's contribution to warming is dwarfed by natural variations in climate.

rug
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2013
Yup, you really are a moronic dumbass.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
Yup, you really are a moronic dumbass. - rug


Double negative, so that must be a compliment, yes?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Aug 26, 2013
It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years. Unless you think science is fake, in which case you have no business on this site, this temperature rise cannot be argued.


If true, so what?
How does this compare to the previous 100, 200, 300,....1000 ..... years ago?

Mann's Hockey Schtick was designed to hide the MWP. Why would any real scientist need to hide facts unless he had an agenda?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
On the worst case scenario we are talking billions of people dead. Most of the life on this planet dead. Now realise for a second that you, and everyone else has the power to stop it from happening. Wouldn't make all that death our fault?


It's hysterical rhetoric like this that causes people to roll their eyes and not take AGW seriously. Guy, they're speaking in terms of tenths of a degree per decade, with accumulated increase in temperature of only 4°F to 6°F over 100 years. We can easily adapt to that, and by then we would likely have hit peak oil causing its price to sky-rocket and alternative markets to become invested in heavily, in any case. Look back a century to see how far technologically we have come, to project how far we will be in a centuries time.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years.


Remarkably stable.
Neinsense99
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 26, 2013
"It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years."

Sorry to burst your bubble but AGW is not really a factor in that before the 40s since fossil fuel usage before then was minimal. In reality, man's contribution to warming is dwarfed by natural variations in climate.


Nothing before the 1940s? As if those planes, tanks, steamships and trains that existed for decades before then ran on wind. Ever heard of the Great War? Blitzkrieg? That little thing called the industrial revolution?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 26, 2013
It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years. Unless you think science is fake, in which case you have no business on this site, this temperature rise cannot be argued.
Actually, about 0.75 degree celsius.

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Lets say for just a moment that everything will happen that has been predicted. Just for argument's sake and we don't do anything to prevent it. On the worst case scenario we are talking billions of people dead. Most of the life on this planet dead.
From what?

This is what's wrong with the AGWites. It's all doom and gloom, without substance.

Gmr
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
Look back a century to see how far technologically we have come, to project how far we will be in a centuries time.

Yeah, I mean - we went to the moon around 1970, and here forty years later we've... not done much besides. Mostly our technology involves information, and really considering the amount of coal we still use to power that indirectly, we're not that far from the ratio of power from coal we were during the industrial revolution. We just cut out some of the whale oil in the meantime.
Gmr
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 26, 2013
Saving who, from what? What imminent threat does the climate pose (rhetorical)? None!

AGWite: "Oh no! The ocean has risen another millimeter! I'm drowning!"

Skeptic: "Walk upshore a step."

AGWite: "Oh no! It's raining, and I'm drowning!"

Skeptic: "Here, have an umbrella."

AGWite: "Oh no, it stopped raining, and I'm dehydrating!"

Skeptic: "Here, have a glass of water."

AGWite: "It's hot out here today and I'm dying of heat stroke."

Skeptic: "Go inside and take a cool bath."

AGWite: "It's snowing and I'm freezing to death!"

Skeptic: "Here, have my coat."

Seriously, that's about all there is to it. It's nothing but a bunch of Chicken Littles, afraid of the weather!


I suppose you'll be happy to give advice to the suffering crops, or herds of animals, or any other living thing we depend upon for food. We generally cultivate what survives well, rather than precisely what we want. Talk to Florida about a "little freeze" and what it does to crops.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 26, 2013
"It has been proven that over all mean global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years."

Sorry to burst your bubble but AGW is not really a factor in that before the 40s since fossil fuel usage before then was minimal. In reality, man's contribution to warming is dwarfed by natural variations in climate.
Nothing before the 1940s? As if those planes, tanks, steamships and trains that existed for decades before then ran on wind. Ever heard of the Great War? Blitzkrieg? That little thing called the industrial revolution?

What, you didn't know the IPCC only attributes anthropogenic global warming since the mid-20th century ?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 26, 2013
I suppose you'll be happy to give advice to the suffering crops, or herds of animals, or any other living thing we depend upon for food.
What food shortages are you talking about? Didn't you know food production is generally rising, and hunger is generally declining?

http://faostat3.f...dex.html

We generally cultivate what survives well, rather than precisely what we want. Talk to Florida about a "little freeze" and what it does to crops.
Well then, it's a good thing we have AGW to solve this little problem, isn't it?

Gmr
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
Well then, it's a good thing we have AGW then, isn't it?

Wow. Remember the dust bowl? The little thing that occurred around the same time as the collapse in 1929 and exacerbated it? That was a minor change in climate compared to what we're looking at.

Crop failures. Before we get to "crops are annual" - tree crops are not. They require orchards, which require long-lived and long-ramp-up-time cultivars. One freeze at the wrong time in Florida and most of the orange crop goes under. Changes like this include it being dry in the wrong region. And right now, in Texas, there are very big problems with drought and farmers fighting with cities for water. And it's only getting hotter. Many of your fruit crops, olives, tree nuts and so-on can't just be moved, and can't be re-established in short order.

Change on this order at this rate is not "good" for the current cultivation system. Big Oil will be fighting Big Agribusiness in short order.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2013
Well then, it's a good thing we have AGW then, isn't it?
Wow. Remember the dust bowl? ...That was a minor change in climate compared to what we're looking at.
Maybe you should read up on the dust bowl and it's causes. Most of the problem was poor land management.

in Texas, there are very big problems with drought and farmers fighting with cities for water
Like episodic drought in the American Southwest ISN'T normal?

And it's only getting hotter.
What, you didn't know the continental U.S. is relatively cool this year?

"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."

http://www.ncdc.n...l/2013/7

Many of your fruit crops, olives, tree nuts and so-on can't just be moved, and can't be re-established in short order.
So which ones are you claiming are in a long-term, short supply?

Gmr
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2013
uvonatuba, I don't think that your points are arguing for your position that the massive, rapid change in climate is a good thing.

If it's a good thing, why should it matter to you which crops might fail, or be in short supply? I'm expecting the retort to be something like: "Nobody ever cried over a few lost pistachios" or something similarly dismissive.

But it also represents lost income and investment, besides the loss in product to market. So somebody will experience hardship. Hardly a good thing.

The drought currently in Texas is of a higher order than in the past, to the point that treaties with Mexico over how much of the Rio Grande can be pumped by each hardly matters since the river many times no longer reaches the ocean. Last year was higher in temperatures, to be sure (quite a few over 100) but rains have not returned with lower temperatures. Drought persists in what is a monsoon climate. Monsoons fail, much of everything else does too.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2013
What, you didn't know the continental U.S. is relatively cool this year?

"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."

Did you even read the quote you posted? It was relatively warm, not cool.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2013
A quick drought monitor:
http://www.cpc.nc...ught.png
A monitor of how much rain in one month would be required to end drought conditions - note the central Texas region that sits at 12 to 15 inches of rain:
http://www.ncdc.n...very.php
This all despite July being one of the top five "wettest on record" for the contiguous United States and with it still being above long term averages in temperature.

All of this with much of the original extreme drought having been "alleviated" from this time one year ago.
http://www.drough...outh.htm

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2013
why should it matter to you which crops might fail, or be in short supply?
It matters because you're making a bogus claim of failure and short supply. Food production generally increases with temperature. It's much harder to grow crops in permafrost than it is to irrigate dry fields.

But it also represents lost income and investment, besides the loss in product to market.
Totally bogus claim, based on AGWite doom and gloom conjecture. There are no crop shortages as a result of warming. In fact, crops do extremely well in some of the warmest places on Earth. California's Central Valley, for instance.

Texas ...Drought persists
Pure B.S. Drought in the SouthWest is normal, and currently Texas drought appears to be easing.

Recent above average rain:

http://www1.ncdc....1307.gif

Recent Palmer Z drought index:

http://www1.ncdc....1307.gif

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2013
What, you didn't know the continental U.S. is relatively cool this year?

"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."

Did you even read the quote you posted? It was relatively warm, not cool.
Apparently chatterbot JohnGee has no sense of proportion.

JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2013
"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average
Get real dumbass. You can't just post something and claim it states the opposite of what it obviously states.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2013
A quick drought monitor:
What don't you get about American Southwestern episodic drought being normal? What do you think you're proving?

Are you an AGW chatterbot, running away on a tangent?

(K-an Ue rEEd diS cENt-aNts?)

Gmr
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
uvonatuba, I live in Texas.

I don't care what you might think is "normal." It is not "normal" because drought monitors don't cover aquifers - they cover soil moisture.

And the aquifers are not faring well. At all. San Antonio is in Stage III water restrictions for the first time in my twenty years here. And the aquifer is not replenishing. At all. It just keeps falling.

About crop failures:
http://www.ft.com...d8wC6l62
Crop failure in Russia, reported by the Financial Times, talking about knock-on effect on global prices. Due to hot, dry season.

As a result, global wheat supply will fall in the 2012-13 season to 661m tonnes, well below consumption of 688m tonnes, according to the UN's
Food and Agriculture Organisation.
JohnGee
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
(K-an Ue rEEd diS cENt-aNts?)
Beep boop. Does not compute.
Sending error to central Soros server system... Done.

"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."
As ubavontuba was kind enough to point out with his source, the first half of this year was warmer than average due to AGW.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2013
"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average
Get real dumbass. You can't just post something and claim it states the opposite of what it obviously states.
Like I said, no sense of proportion.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2013
uvonatuba, I live in Texas.

I don't care what you might think is "normal." It is not "normal" because drought monitors don't cover aquifers - they cover soil moisture.

And the aquifers are not faring well. At all. San Antonio is in Stage III water restrictions for the first time in my twenty years here. And the aquifer is not replenishing. At all. It just keeps falling.
That's a result of over-pumping, not climate.

About crop failures:
http://www.ft.com...d8wC6l62
Crop failure in Russia, reported by the Financial Times, talking about knock-on effect on global prices. Due to hot, dry season.

As a result, global wheat supply will fall in the 2012-13 season to 661m tonnes, well below consumption of 688m tonnes, according to the UN's
Food and Agriculture Organisation.
So now you think every crop failure since time began is now a result of AGW?

Maybe you should read up a little on farming.

Gmr
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2013
uvonatuba, I did not state what you said. My claim is that climate changes are not a net good with no bad. There are problems with crops in changes in climate. Specifically with drought and soil moisture changes.

This runs counter to your claim that climate change is good, or a minimal annoyance at worst.

I've provided some examples from the Financial Times, hardly a bastion of liberal science, that essentially says that due to last years failure in feedstocks, this year's feedstock of choice went up in price, and then up still more when wheat failed in many places across the globe. Which has the knock on effect of reducing supply since it fell below consumption, and increasing the cost to cattle farmers, which will be passed on to consumers either in reduced herds (culling due to loss of feedstock) or increased cost per pound.

And projections for next year are not good either.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2013
"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."
As ubavontuba was kind enough to point out with his source, the first half of this year was warmer than average due to AGW.
JohnGee thinks 42nd place is somwhere close to 1st place.

...Just no sense of proportion, at all.
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
Regarding Texas,
No, not overpumping. We've been in Stage II almost for a solid year, so pumping has been reduced, and reduced still further with these latest restrictions.

Rain has not fallen like it should. That's the cause. So both the aquifer is not replenished, and more water is pumped to feed crops.

And it's worse than it's been in a long time.

And year over year temperatures are going up. When I first got here, there were some days in winter when we'd get solid freezes, roads would ice up, accidents galore.

There were very few below zero days these last three years, if any.
Granted, this is only local, and less than thirty years - but from what I'm reading of what you write, anecdote has more power than data.

So that's my anecdote. Higher temperatures, less water.
Gmr
3 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
And uvonatuba, it's hardly good manners to move the goalposts mid-play.

You asked for examples of crop failure. I provided. Similar to my prediction, it was discounted.

That's moving the goalposts.
JohnGee
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2013
"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."
As ubavontuba was kind enough to point out with his source, the first half of this year was warmer than average due to AGW.
JohnGee thinks 42nd place is somwhere close to 1st place.

...Just no sense of proportion, at all.

42nd out of what, over 150 years? That's above average, dipshit.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2013
uvonatuba, I did not state what you said. My claim is that climate changes are not a net good with no bad. There are problems with crops in changes in climate. Specifically with drought and soil moisture changes.
First, you have to prove global drought is significantly increasing, particularly in crop producing regions. This simply isn't the case. The biosphere is booming and even the deserts are greening.

Rain has not fallen like it should. That's the cause. So both the aquifer is not replenished, and more water is pumped to feed crops.
You obviously know little of this aquifier.

http://en.wikiped...recharge

And year over year temperatures are going up. When I first got here, there were some days in winter when we'd get solid freezes, roads would ice up, accidents galore.
Hmm... is this a bad thing?

Besides, it's been mighty frosty last Spring:

http://www.plantm...-map.php

Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2013
So, uvonatuba, keep moving those goalposts. Keep reaching.

It went from "name a failing crop" to "you think all crops fail from human cause" to "you have to prove all the globe is experiencing drought." You know very well drought is regional - as in changes in weather patterns. Claiming now that drought has to be worldwide is disingenuous.

And San Antonio is watered by the Edwards Aquifer, just so you know. And it's around forty feet below stage one water restrictions - specifically, around 630 feet at test wells in Bexar County.

I've gotten to know it pretty well, what with visiting most of the watershed areas that have been turned into public land.

You've got something buried somewhere, but I'm not about to fish it out.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2013
There were very few below zero days these last three years, if any.
Granted, this is only local, and less than thirty years - but from what I'm reading of what you write, anecdote has more power than data.
Strange ...so why am I the one providing most of the data?

So that's my anecdote. Higher temperatures, less water.
Since when? How much hotter? Is it unprecedented?

And uvonatuba, it's hardly good manners to move the goalposts mid-play.

You asked for examples of crop failure. I provided. Similar to my prediction, it was discounted.

That's moving the goalposts.
Nope, I asked for proof of global crop shortages as a result of global warming. Regional, periodic drought anecdotes are irrelevant.

All you're saying is, you got nothing to show for your claims.

Gmr
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2013

All you're saying is, you got nothing to show for your claims.



Oh dear. How much longer before the classic bon mot: "I know you are but what am I?"

Really, I'm not sure who you are trying to impress, but your bravado doesn't match anything you've tried to use to back it up.

Those goalposts must be getting heavy.
rug
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2013
No, I think GMR is saying in his way, you are a dumbass. Just like the rest of us. He's just much nicer about it.

That is assuming Gmr is a guy...
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2013
"The year-to-date contiguous U.S. temperature of 51.8°F was 0.5°F above the 20th century average and tied with 1952 as the 42nd warmest January–July on record."
As ubavontuba was kind enough to point out with his source, the first half of this year was warmer than average due to AGW.
JohnGee thinks 42nd place is somewhere close to 1st place.

...Just no sense of proportion, at all.
42nd out of what, over 150 years? That's above average, dipshit.
LOL! You don't even know the spread!

Gosh, if the U.S. was cataclysmically warming, wouldn't you like expect every year to be the hottest ever? How can it possibly be getting cataclysmically hotter, when this year is only the 42nd warmest? Obviously, this must mean it's gotten cooler since the hottest ever, and significantly so.

Is your sense of proportion working yet?

Gmr
3.1 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
No, I think GMR is saying in his way, you are a dumbass. Just like the rest of us. He's just much nicer about it.

That is assuming Gmr is a guy...


I can confirm I'm a guy. And I prefer to keep sniping to a minimum where possible, because disagreeing doesn't have to mean being disagreeable. Lesson learned through a failed marriage.

I'm afraid some sarcasm does get through at times. Working on that.
rug
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
Like I said, in a nice way lol
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 27, 2013
So, uvonatuba, keep moving those goalposts. Keep reaching.

It went from "name a failing crop" to "you think all crops fail from human cause" to "you have to prove all the globe is experiencing drought."
Actually it was you moving the goal posts. First you claimed warming causes global drought and crop failure, then regional drought, then drought in Texas only.

You know very well drought is regional - as in changes in weather patterns. Claiming now that drought has to be worldwide is disingenuous.
This was your claim, not mine. You claimed that AGW would cause food shortages.

Those goalposts must be getting heavy
I wouldn't know.

disagreeing doesn't have to mean being disagreeable.
I certainly agree with that!

I'm afraid some sarcasm does get through at times. Working on that.
Me too, but it's tough to include all the pleasantries in such a limited space.

Even though we failed to come to an understanding, thank you for your time.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (19) Aug 27, 2013
Gmr, you gave examples of local weather seasonal variations and implied that they were due to AGW, specifically that you personally are noticing the effects of AGW in weather, while at the same time less then thirty years of data is not to be considered a meaningful trend. If local weather is not to be used to reject AGW, it shouldn't be used in support of it.

..........

The technological advances have been huge from a century ago, where there exists economic motive, and will be likewise a century from now. There has as yet been no economic motive to get off oil as its still the cheapest energy source.

Btw, everyone, in the position of power, knows about AGW by now, but yet we have not slowed the burning of oil. What does this fact mean to you?

The damage caused by ad-hoc transfusion or reduction of the economies oil to alternatives that have not been first validated by the market, will be greater than that caused by a few degrees of temperature over the next one hundreded years.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2013
Rug, GMR,JohnGee:

You are learning the way others have on here who have given up attempting to debate with Uba:
Even when caught out wrong (says its cooler - but its actually warmer - (then) you're wrong - because of no sense of proportion - it's 42nd ... blah ). Things are turned around/conflated into something else that he/she is always correct about. There is not a single thing he/she does not know better than you - delivered, often, along with a condescending "LOL".
It's wasted effort ........ other than for you to demonstrate the arrogance behind the ignorance of the person.
JohnGee
3.2 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
LOL! You don't even know the spread!
Climate records in the US generally go back to about 1850, that's why I went with 150+ years.
Based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI), the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand during July was above average and ranked as the 41st highest July value in the 119-year period of record.
From your source.
The best I can tell, the data went back 119 years. 42nd out of 119 is above average. You are still wrong as your original quote clearly stated "above average," which in no way except dishonestly can be construed as meaning "cooler than average".

You are nearly as bad as ryggesogn2 at being so arrogant and dishonest as to not read your sources and just assume they agree with you. Hint: the vast majority don't.
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 27, 2013
Noumenon,
If you had followed the thread, the point I was trying to disprove was the one stating that we'd be better off with climate change. One example of a "downside" i responded with was drought and crop failure. Generally not good things. The argument twisted from there due to goalpost shifting.

I do not begrudge you popping in at the end to give your two cents, but it might have been more insightful and incisive had you put in some effort.
JohnGee
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 27, 2013
Gosh, if the U.S. was cataclysmically warming, wouldn't you like expect every year to be the hottest ever?
ubavontuba

No, only a moron would think that.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2013
Gosh, if the U.S. was cataclysmically warming, wouldn't you like expect every year to be the hottest ever?
ubavontuba

No, only a moron would think that.


you said it
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (18) Aug 27, 2013
AGW won't matter when the next asteroid hits.
rug
1.4 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
@ryggesogn - for once you have a very valid point.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Aug 27, 2013
@ryggesogn - for once you have a very valid point.

Why so little concern from AGWites who want to 'save humanity'?
rug
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
ryggesogn, I can guarantee I'm not looking to save you.
Neinsense99
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 27, 2013
@ryggesogn - for once you have a very valid point.

Perhaps, but only if "the next asteroid" is sufficiently big. Smaller rocks could do damage but still leave plenty of stressed survivors to be affected by climate changes.
JohnGee
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 27, 2013
Is ryggesogn2 seriously resorting to an argument resembling "if climate activists really cared about humanity, they'd put that effort into preventing an asteroid impact!"?

Has he really had that many shitty points shot down that he has to resort to such an obviously flawed argument? Maybe he is finally running out of steam.

And that doesn't even mention that what is really bad about asteroids is not the impact, but the inevitable Climate Change that follows the impact. I mean... come on. I think ryggesogn2 is vendicar trying to make conservatives look stupid, and he is doing a good job.
rug
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 27, 2013
I think he really believes the crap he spews.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2013
Gmr,

the point I was trying to disprove was the one stating that we'd be better off with climate change. One example of a "downside" i responded with was drought and crop failure. Generally not good things.
Actually, this was your response to my statement that AGWites are "a bunch of Chicken Littles, afraid of the weather."

The argument twisted from there due to goalpost shifting.
As the facts of your beliefs didn't bear scrutiny, instead of running all over the field with the goalposts, maybe you might reconsider your beliefs?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Aug 28, 2013
runrig, rug, JohnGee, et al,

What a bunch of whiny babies. Being unable to intelligently argue the merits of your beliefs, you instead degenerate into pouty-faced bullies. My children could put up more reasoned arguments than you.

If the facts of your case cannot alone support your cause, then of what value is your cause?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 28, 2013
Gee, asteroids have been proven to destroy many species of life in the past, quite dramatically.
Humans may now have the technology, thanks to the energy released from burning fossil fuels to stop another catastrophic event, but AGWites are more worried about burning fossil fuels.
AGWites claims of saving humanity are specious if they are not more concerned about known, possibly preventable calamities like an asteroid impact.
Since AGWites claims to save humanity ARE specious, then what are their real motivations? Their actions suggest political power, socialism, is their highest priority.
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
ubavontuba,
The statement was made in the context that climate changes are minor inconveniences with little actual effect. My points were to demonstrate that changes associated with climate such as prolonged drought can have negative consequences beyond those addressed with the application of donated outerwear.

This is borne out by a re-reading of the thread on this page.

I am disappointed that my prognostication regarding the devolvement of discourse proved founded.
Neinsense99
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
Is ryggesogn2 seriously resorting to an argument resembling "if climate activists really cared about humanity, they'd put that effort into preventing an asteroid impact!"?

Has he really had that many shitty points shot down that he has to resort to such an obviously flawed argument? Maybe he is finally running out of steam.

And that doesn't even mention that what is really bad about asteroids is not the impact, but the inevitable Climate Change that follows the impact. I mean... come on. I think ryggesogn2 is vendicar trying to make conservatives look stupid, and he is doing a good job.

It is a desperate ploy to change the subject. That's all they have, other than swarming with down-votes. I expect the latter if I so much as post "Good morning". Pathetic.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (19) Aug 28, 2013
Is ryggesogn2 seriously resorting to an argument resembling "if climate activists really cared about humanity, they'd put that effort into preventing an asteroid impact!"?

Has he really had that many shitty points shot down that he has to resort to such an obviously flawed argument? Maybe he is finally running out of steam.

And that doesn't even mention that what is really bad about asteroids is not the impact, but the inevitable Climate Change that follows the impact. I mean... come on. I think ryggesogn2 is vendicar trying to make conservatives look stupid, and he is doing a good job.

It is a desperate ploy to change the subject. That's all they have, other than swarming with down-votes. I expect the latter if I so much as post "Good morning". Pathetic.

AGWites have no comment about priorities, asteroids vs AGW? Which has the most risk to humanity?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2013
"The more affordable, reliable energy we can produce, the better world we can build. In order for everyone in the world to have as much energy as the average German, we would need to produce twice as much energy. [3]

1.3 billion people in the world lack electricity: that means no light at night, no refrigeration, no factories, no water purification. [4]

And all of us could do more with more energy to travel and with lower electric and heating bills.

So it is very upsetting to me to see the fossil fuel industry, by far the best producer of energy, attacked as a "dirty" industry to be eliminated. That is a policy of mass destruction. And unfortunately, it's not an innocent mistake; the "environmentalist" leaders who hate fossil fuels also hate nuclear power and hydroelectric power, the only other two sources that have provided any significant affordable, reliable power."
- See more at: http://www.master...wLU.dpuf
MR166
1.2 / 5 (20) Aug 28, 2013
Yes rugg, that is the main goal of the Progressive/Green movement. They despise the US and the freedoms that it once stood for. They have almost destroyed those freedoms and only have to wait until the few remaining parents of the baby boomers all die off in order to see their master plan succeed. The boomers, it seems, were handed everything and had no idea of the sacrifices that were made for their freedoms. The boomers children have been propagandized to the point of being educated but still totally ignorant.
Neinsense99
1.8 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
Is ryggesogn2 seriously resorting to an argument resembling "if climate activists really cared about humanity, they'd put that effort into preventing an asteroid impact!"?

Has he really had that many shitty points shot down that he has to resort to such an obviously flawed argument? Maybe he is finally running out of steam.

And that doesn't even mention that what is really bad about asteroids is not the impact, but the inevitable Climate Change that follows the impact. I mean... come on. I think ryggesogn2 is vendicar trying to make conservatives look stupid, and he is doing a good job.

It is a desperate ploy to change the subject. That's all they have, other than swarming with down-votes. I expect the latter if I so much as post "Good morning". Pathetic.

And along came two 1-ratings to illustrate my later point.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
NONSENSE here is a little tip. If you want to know what a progressive does just look at what he accuses a conservative of doing.
SaulAlinsky
1.3 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2013
"NONSENSE here is a little tip. If you want to know what a progressive does just look at what he accuses a conservative of doing."

Well that's projection to the umpteenth degree. You sound like a nazi talking about a Jew. Pretty horrible stuff.
Gmr
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2013
We have nazis.

This thread is done.
MR166
1 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
?
JohnGee
2 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2013
Gee, asteroids have been proven to destroy many species of life in the past, quite dramatically.
So has climate change.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2013
AGWites have no comment about priorities, asteroids vs AGW? Which has the most risk to humanity?


It is a matter of which we can have control over. An unmapped asteroid can (and do) crop up whizzing past Earth unheralded. No amount of preparation could stop it. Also the US is the only conceivable nation that could prevent such a catastrophe ( unless you want a concerted world-wide approach - and as we know that's against your ideology).
Meanwhile mitigating AGW is in our control and will eventually be done anyway once mankind realises that 19th century technology has had it's day
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
It is a matter of which we can have control over


What are ALL the variables that affect climate and how do you plan to control them?
runrig
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2013
It is a matter of which we can have control over


What are ALL the variables that affect climate and how do you plan to control them?


Known variables are GHG's, Solar, Aerosols, ENSO/PDO, AMD and other ocean cycles in the main ( +orbital changes on a millenium timescale). The only one of those known to be not cyclic and increasing is GHG's - up 40% (in terms of anthro CO2) since the 18th cent.
The only one we can control ... you guessed it .... is anthro CO2. And I am NOT an advocate of sudden green policy implementation ..... It needs to be done sustainably, gradually. We will have to live with the harm already/to be done before we can realistically make a difference. Nothing will topple king oil without a staggering physics breakthrough and so painful subsidy must be employed. Maybe, later, physics will be confounded but till then we are going to have to pay for the sins of our fathers.
djr
4 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2013
runrig: "Nothing will topple king oil"

That depends on your time frame runrig. I think we are in the midst of the greatest technological transition to date - and that the time frame is going to surprise many. Here is an interesting projection you may want to mull. http://cleantechn...nosaurs/

rug
1.8 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Nothing will topple king oil without a staggering physics breakthrough

ummm I hate to disagree with someone that is making a very valid point, but when they run out of oil, they are toppled.
rug
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
IMHO I think the oil companies should stop spending so much money to look like the old tobacco companies from way back and diverse into other realms of power. Wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, and just maybe even come up with something better.

They must know that there will come a time when they are unable to find and/or pump oil. If for no other reason that it has ran out. What are they going to do then? Looks to me like nothing.

I think I just might call them dumbasses as well.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
"They must know that there will come a time when they are unable to find and/or pump oil. If for no other reason that it has ran out. What are they going to do then? Looks to me like nothing."

OK rug it looks like you and I just might agree again. The real problem facing mankind is not CO2 emissions but running out of easy (fossil based ) energy. BTW the oil companies are not staffed by idiots. If they thought that solar or wind energy was a viable alternate to fossil energy they would have monopolized it by now.
rug
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Ah but that is the thing, they are to busy screaming the oil spills were not their fault, CO2 is not causing global warming, there is no global warming, any dispute with anywhere in the middle east will raise oil prices within hours so don't mess with them and a bunch of other crap to even bother looking into it.

If they just stopped all their crap for a bit and looked around they will see there are lots of people living off the grid, driving electric cars, and not giving any of their money to the oil companies. They really need to get into the market or the market is going to get into them.

The real problem facing mankind is not CO2 emissions but running out of easy (fossil based ) energy

CO2 is the problem so no, we don't agree. I'm not worried about running out of oil. I'm just saying the oil companies are going to go the way of the dodo birds if they don't change.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
"If they just stopped all their crap for a bit and looked around they will see there are lots of people living off the grid, driving electric cars, and not giving any of their money to the oil companies. They really need to get into the market or the market is going to get into them."

Really! You are referring to the early adopter fringe at best. Even in the most heavily populated cities where transportation is municipal in nature the majority of energy is supplied by oil and gas. We will stop using oil and gas as a main supplier of energy only when it becomes so expensive that alternatives are more cost effective. If the government tries to mandate other forms of energy too soon businesses and jobs will just move to a more economical location.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
Known variables are ...

What are the UNKNOWN variables? It seems new ones keep surfacing.
The only one we can control ... you guessed it .... is anthro CO2

Which what percentage of natural occurring CO2?

Asteroid control is an engineering problem with known knowns and known unknowns.

Climate has too many unknown unknowns, AND, as climate is an emergent system all predictions must be based upon modeling and simulations that are limited and will always be limited.

Oil companies are ENERGY companies and will sell any energy they can profit from. BP and others make a big deal about promoting their non-oil energy, but they could only profit IF heavily subsidized.
The opposite of subsidy are taxes and regulations that limit many other potentially profitable energy sources.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2013
MR166 "oil companies are not staffed by idiots. If they thought that solar or wind energy was a viable alternate to fossil energy they would have monopolized it by now" I am sure that oil companies hire very smart engineers - they do an amazing job. However, - history is replete with examples of very smart companies - who hire very smart staff, but were blind sided by some change or another. Remember that huge company called Wang? - boy did they get blind sided. We are on the leading edge of one of the greatest technological revolutions ever - hang on to your hats....
rug
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 28, 2013
Really! You are referring to the early adopter fringe at best.

I think you would be surprised to know how many farmers are living off the grid in the midwest.
If the government tries to mandate other forms of energy too soon businesses and jobs will just move to a more economical location.

Great, they can take the people they imported in to work for them as well. Then there is room for new industries and businesses to start up. Owned by US citizens employing US citizens. I know, it's a novel idea. Who would have thought to higher people from the US to work in the US.

I know I'm not going to change your mind. So I'm not going to try. I'm sure you won't believe me even if I gave you links to the data. I do however, encourage you to look it up for yourself. I think you would be very surprised by the results.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 28, 2013
Nothing will topple king oil without a staggering physics breakthrough

ummm I hate to disagree with someone that is making a very valid point, but when they run out of oil, they are toppled.


With each post you demonstrate your lack of economic understanding. We will never "run out of oil", it will simply remain in the ground as being not cost effective to extract given alternatives.

As mentioned by rygg, most "oil companies" are actually Energy Companies, and they do invest heavily in altervatives. Energy companies will simply move on to the next energy source, so they won't be "toppled" as you say. Again there is nothing particular about oil that is desired,... any form of energy whatever that has the same potential for return will do equally well.
rug
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 28, 2013
Not without the infrastructure. Currently the only infrastructure we have is for oil.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
ubavontuba,
The statement was made in the context that climate changes are minor inconveniences with little actual effect.
So you tried to make this point with a fallacious, and wholly unsupported argument?

My points were to demonstrate that changes associated with climate such as prolonged drought can have negative consequences beyond those addressed with the application of donated outerwear.
Supposing the climate is changing, why would you presume all climate change must automatically be bad?

I am disappointed that my prognostication regarding the devolvement of discourse proved founded.
There you go again with another insinuation. Why are you degenerating the conversation? Is it impossible for you to be in a disagreement and remain civil?

djr
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2013
"Is it impossible for you to be in a disagreement and remain civil?"

This from the person who says things like - djr=lying, scumbag, hypocrite.

You have now gone down the rabbit hole gmr!!!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
I think you would be surprised to know how many farmers are living off the grid in the midwest.

Not really when one considers the cost of running power to farms. Oh, wait, that was subsidized by REA. I wanted to use manure to generate methane and heat green houses for winter tomatoes in SD.
I'm all for living off the grid. Put sealed nuclear reactors in city buildings, in remote towns like Galena, AK. But the AGW-like enviros refuse to accept any solution but wind and solar and will force 30 year regulatory delays, like they have done with an oil refinery in AZ.
Currently the only infrastructure we have is for oil

No. There is a significant infrastructure for natural gas and propane.
A fuel station could sell diesel, gasoline, propane, natural gas quite easily, if govt red tape was amenable.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
""Directed Energy - Solar Targeting of Asteroids and Exploration". In concept, it could vaporize some space objects or – less dramatically - nudge them off a collision course with Earth with a little machining. It's a stretch for the imagination, he admits.

"It's hard, but it's not impossible," Lubin said. "We should take it seriously, it's not science fiction." He said it's not a matter of 'if' we will do something along these lines, but 'when'.

Yes, it will be very expensive, the professor admitted, adding: "What's our planet worth?""
http://optics.org/news/4/8/30
runrig
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2013
runrig: "Nothing will topple king oil"

That depends on your time frame runrig. I think we are in the midst of the greatest technological transition to date - and that the time frame is going to surprise many. Here is an interesting projection you may want to mull. http://cleantechn...nosaurs/



What I meant by that is that nothing will topple oil without help - and solar has already had that with subsidy to bring down the price of panels. There is nothing that is going to come out of the blue unless it's earth-shattering and then vested interests would come into play. We will have continued improvements in current tech and I am aware of continued advances in battery/capacitor tech. Maybe solar farms can surpplant power stations and the power fed by DC into a new grid from desert areas. N Africa for Europe though is a bit dodgy.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2013
Nothing will topple king oil without a staggering physics breakthrough

ummm I hate to disagree with someone that is making a very valid point, but when they run out of oil, they are toppled.


Yes of course. I thought I'd said that lower down. .... Or when It gets too expensive - that as a result of running out in easily drilled places..
Gmr
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2013
"Is it impossible for you to be in a disagreement and remain civil?"

This from the person who says things like - djr=lying, scumbag, hypocrite.

You have now gone down the rabbit hole gmr!!!!


I think you might have to calibrate your iron sights and check that sight picture again. I don't believe I've made any of these equivalencies to arrays of attributes, but I could always be wrong. If you have a link and post index, I'd be happy to have a look, and admit it if it is true. Honestly, I don't recall any direct interactions between us.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (16) Aug 29, 2013
What I meant by that is that nothing will topple oil without help

It's called economics.
If govts stopped 'helping', market forces, not govts, would decide the best paths forward.
rug
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 29, 2013
No. There is a significant infrastructure for natural gas and propane.
A fuel station could sell diesel, gasoline, propane, natural gas quite easily, if govt red tape was amenable.

Ok, you got me there. I had forgotten the natural gas. Still you do realise burning natural gas isn't much better than oil right? Still stuffing extra CO2 into the air.
Put sealed nuclear reactors in city buildings

Are you freaking crazy? I guess a few extra dead people form the radiation wouldn't be a big deal. I know you said sealed. Still doesn't block all the radiation and if there is a tornado, earthquake, flood, or any other natural disaster you run the risk of killing everyone around the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for nuclear energy but it has to be done in remote locations or it's going to kill a lot of people. There is also the storage problem that isn't going away. I personally think we should send it to the moon, venus, or even the sun or something like.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
"What's our planet worth?"

You do realize that is the same argument for cutting CO2 emissions right? Although to be honest the planet will be just fine in either cause a huge asteroid or gets to hot. Look at Venus, the planet is fine. It's us we need worry about. That's the same problem I had about the phrase "Save the Earth" that was going around for such a long time. Makes absolutely no sense.
rug
1.3 / 5 (11) Aug 29, 2013
What I meant by that is that nothing will topple oil without help

It's called economics.
If govts stopped 'helping', market forces, not govts, would decide the best paths forward.

These would be the same markets that sell tobacco - known to cause cancer, cars that are known to explode, cars that can't stop, sells houses that are worthless, medication for morning sickness that cause birth defects, etc. That list could go on and on and on.

http://www.recalls.gov/
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
Still you do realise burning natural gas isn't much better than oil right? Still stuffing extra CO2 into the air.

Burning anything is better than freezing to death.
I'm all for nuclear energy but it has to be done in remote locations

Ever hear of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers? They use fission reactors for power.
Or ever hear of Galena, AK and the Toshiba sealed nuclear reactor or the sealed nuclear 'battery' developed by Sandia?
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2013
GMR: "Honestly, I don't recall any direct interactions between us."

Sorry to confuse you - it was Uba who asked you if it is possible for you to disagree, and still be civil. It was also Uba who attacked me - calling me a 'lying, scumbag, hypocrite' I was just pointing out how trying to have a conversation with such a person - is like going down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland.

Cheers.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 29, 2013
Ever hear of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers? They use fission reactors for power.
Or ever hear of Galena, AK and the Toshiba sealed nuclear reactor or the sealed nuclear 'battery' developed by Sandia?


I have never claimed the human race was smart.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (15) Aug 29, 2013
""Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions," writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially "meaningless" claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an "Iron Triangle" of poor incentives."

Read more: http://dailycalle...dPFIYxpS
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 29, 2013
hmmmm

"Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all.""
http://en.wikiped..._Lindzen

One simple search and found he was a crock.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
Richard Lindzen, MIT:
"Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences"
"He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. "
http://www-eaps.m...dzen.htm
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
And yet that does not negate that fact that what his is telling people is scientifically proven to not be true.
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
I think it's rather funny the some people claim scientist are hyping up global warming for money and then take the word of one of the very few that take money to tell them why they want to hear.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (15) Aug 30, 2013
I think it's rather funny the some people claim scientist are hyping up global warming for money

Claim? That's how they keep their jobs, hyping AGW. More hype, more grants.
Mann now runs some center at Penn State. Then there is Andersen at Harvard that has his own research institute. You don't think they are adequately compensated with salary and status for their efforts?
Who in the AGW religion is a monk, working for nothing, slaving away (other than grad students)?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (15) Aug 30, 2013
And yet that does not negate that fact that what his is telling people is scientifically proven to not be true.

Proven? 'Almost certainly' is proof?
How? Consensus?
Correlation is not causation.
rug
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 30, 2013
Proven? 'Almost certainly' is proof?
How? Consensus?
Correlation is not causation.

If you had any kind of brains at all you would know that science has never and will never be 100% so Almost certainly is the best it could be. Like somewhere around 99.99% would still be considered Almost certainly.

Now, I have said this before, and I will say it again. You have no evidence to back your claims, while science does. So how about you take your religious views and STFU dumbass
rug
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 30, 2013
Correlation is not causation.

True, but every causation has a correlation. While you can't say a correlation means there is a cause/effect. You can always say a cause/effect will have a correlation where the cause precedes the effect. Unless you are talking quantum physics. I stay away from that though cause I like to keep my sanity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
You have no evidence to back your claims, while science does.

No, it does not.
Until AGWites can explain ALL previous 'global warming' events, why should AGWites be trusted today?
After all, Mann et al did their best to hide the MWP by manipulating proxy data.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
" But, as all the pieces discussing the warming plateau make perfectly clear, climate scientists are actually pretty baffled about the failure of their predictions. Is it the oceans? Clouds? Volcanoes? The sun? An artifact of temperature data?

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. "
"The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend."
"If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. "
http://www.econom...3/06/cli
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 30, 2013
http://www.breitb...res-Drop

Damn, that AGW is starting to get serious.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2013
MR166: "Damn, that AGW is starting to get serious."

So one region of Peru experiences colder temps than they have experienced in 10 years. This of course informs us greatly about the state of our planet. Meanwhile - north east asia is under a severe heat wave - Shanghai experiencing the hottest July in 140 years.

http://www.cnn.co...sia-heat

Boy - read some of the comments on Breitbart. Here is an exerpt - "All over Peru muslim males are crying for their lost sex partners. It's really a sad story, boy finds love and alpaca, boy loses alpaca to freezing temps and Al Gore is nowhere to be found."

Now I see why Physorg is so poisoned with stupid shit - you and Rygg deserve each other MR166.

Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 31, 2013

...Boy - read some of the comments on Breitbart. Here is an exerpt - "All over Peru muslim males are crying for their lost sex partners. It's really a sad story, boy finds love and alpaca, boy loses alpaca to freezing temps and Al Gore is nowhere to be found."...

Peru is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, with indigenous traditions still present. How many Muslim males could Peru actually have?
Gmr
2.2 / 5 (9) Aug 31, 2013
Supposing the climate is changing, why would you presume all climate change must automatically be bad?


Because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Any time you have any kind of action or reaction, there are consequences. Rare are the consequences which are universally good. There end up haves and have-nots. This is fundamental in economics. If you stand to make a lot of money, it has to come from somewhere. If you are at market saturation for a product type and you expect to cut into that market, it will be at the expense of somebody else.

Winners and losers. You can't have winners without losers. And any time you change the game, you have new winners and new losers. And until it settles out again, you have chaos and upheaval.

Chaos and upheaval are generally, also, seen as both opportunity and risk. Which is why Wall Street tends to jump any time instability rears its ugly maw.
Gmr
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2013

...Boy - read some of the comments on Breitbart. Here is an exerpt - "All over Peru muslim males are crying for their lost sex partners. It's really a sad story, boy finds love and alpaca, boy loses alpaca to freezing temps and Al Gore is nowhere to be found."...

Peru is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, with indigenous traditions still present. How many Muslim males could Peru actually have?


As many as it takes to "validate" a statement like the above. One, as far as somebody trying to be racist, classist, islamophobic, and insulting all at the same time is concerned.
Neinsense99
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013

...Boy - read some of the comments on Breitbart. Here is an exerpt - "All over Peru muslim males are crying for their lost sex partners. It's really a sad story, boy finds love and alpaca, boy loses alpaca to freezing temps and Al Gore is nowhere to be found."...

Peru is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, with indigenous traditions still present. How many Muslim males could Peru actually have?


As many as it takes to "validate" a statement like the above. One, as far as somebody trying to be racist, classist, islamophobic, and insulting all at the same time is concerned.

Even prejudice has its efficiencies.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2013
Face it warmists your imaginary 97% is fading fast. Scientists now realize that they must speak out against this hoax or be painted with the broad brush of scientific malfeasance. Papers with alternate explanations for the earths climate cycles and temperature extremes are now being published daily. Eventually all of that hyperbole that the hoaxers put out there catches up with them.
runrig
3 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2013
Face it warmists your imaginary 97% is fading fast. Scientists now realize that they must speak out against this hoax or be painted with the broad brush of scientific malfeasance. Papers with alternate explanations for the earths climate cycles and temperature extremes are now being published daily. ....

First off - it is not imaginary. Whether 90 or 99% the consensus is there. You rely on conspiracy - the logic of an idiot confounded by probability for your imaginary "malfeasance".

There are no papers (causation physics + correlation) that explain the continued rise of global temps ( below the overlying cool hiatus that ENSO is currently causing ), other than GHG theory. I'm sorry if that does not fit your ideology - but shit happens.

You are welcome to link any papers that are peer reviewed and not hyped up by paid anti-AGW bloggers. Doing hand-waving only makes you feel good and preaches to the converted. It doesn't establish your imaginary world as truth.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
explain the continued rise of global temps

Explain the MWP.
other than GHG theory

What are ALL the variables that impact climate and why were they discarded?
rug
1.3 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
I look forward to the day when what is left of the human population feels the need to punish the deniers like ryggesogn2 and mr166 for holding back the policies that could have prevented the biggest human extinction even ever known.
Gmr
2 / 5 (8) Aug 31, 2013
Face it warmists your imaginary 97% is fading fast. Scientists now realize that they must speak out against this hoax or be painted with the broad brush of scientific malfeasance. Papers with alternate explanations for the earths climate cycles and temperature extremes are now being published daily. Eventually all of that hyperbole that the hoaxers put out there catches up with them.


Tired of arguing? I tend to see the blanket/shotgun sniping and general mocking when there does not appear to be a toehold anymore. This is generally followed by a retreat to a more "friendly" enclave, so conviction can be renewed.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (14) Aug 31, 2013
I look forward to the day when what is left of the human population feels the need to punish the deniers like ryggesogn2 and mr166 for holding back the policies that could have prevented the biggest human extinction even ever known.

Which is it: you can' t or won't answer the the question about ALL variables that drive climate?

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013
Reference for previous:
http://en.wikiped..._warming
rug
1.8 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
Which is it: you can' t or won't answer the the question about ALL variables that drive climate?

How about you go ask anyone from this page?
http://en.wikiped...ientists
Since I am not a climate scientist.

Take your questions, arguments, political rantings, and all your other dumbass rantings to them. I'm done trying to be logical with illogical people like you.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2013
" I'm done trying to be logical with illogical people like you."

Smile - join the club. It is impossible to know the motivations of the masters of obfuscation like Ryggy, MR, Uba and Nik. It seems clear to me that they do not live in the same reality as me. Life is short - as illustrated by this photo essay of a couples life together - http://www.youtub...pfZZKXdI

In life - we can try to be part of the solution - which is why I read boards like Physorg - and use to participate more in the comments - that have now been hijacked by the haters. Or - one can choose to hold us back in our ignorance. Here is an interesting talk - that reminds me of the tenor of many of the anti science boobs that now control the comments here.

http://www.youtub...qRHXBvTM

MR166
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 31, 2013
When the glaciers cover the roads in the European alpine passes I will be awaiting the AGW explanation for this. No doubt it will still be weather and not climate and there will many explanations as to how this fits into the AGW predictions. Winters in Europe have been getting more severe over the past years and it will be fun to see the Warmists explain the ice flows.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Aug 31, 2013
It's interesting how AGWites attack the motivation of the scientists who are critical of AGW.
The primary critique is they are hired guns of some nefarious corporation.
Maybe they do so because the AGWites are motivated the profit of seriousness corporations, individuals and politicians seeking power.
Enron was a major proponent of the Kyoto treating. There are and have been many corporations seeking rent to fabricate wind mils, electric cars, ethanol, etc. GE is one such company and their CEO is/was an adviser to BHO.
Former senator Al Gore, whose family made their fortune with oil has now made a fortune hyping AGW and selling carbon credits (which is how Ken Lay and Enron wanted to profit).
AGWites assert they are altruists and only want to save humanity.
That assertions is quite tainted.

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 31, 2013
Since I am not a climate scientist.

Take your questions, arguments, political rantings, and all your other dumbass rantings to them. I'm done trying to be logical with illogical people like you.


But you reject out of hand those who are critical of AGW as listed in the link?

Is it logical to be so emotional and resort to insults?

Since insults and personal attacks are levied so often by those claiming to logical and support science, is that how real scientists act? It must since this web site does nothing to limit their vulgarity.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2013
Explain the MWP.

What are ALL the variables that impact climate and why were they discarded?

The MWP, if it was global can only have been driven by TSI (sun). See...ftp://pmodwrc.ch/...tted.pdf
Show that TSi in the period 950-1300 AD was not remarkable.

The Sun is not a parallel for today as we know that currently the Sun is at reduced activity and still global temps are rising (taking away the cool ENSO signal). There is also evidence of reduced volcanic activity during the MWP, which would allow greater surface warming.
If not the Sun then the MWP was not global and was driven by climate cycles, presumably by enhanced ocean current anomalies, causing atmospheric (jet) anomalies.
Again this can only partly explain recent warming (Many El Ninos prior to 1999) and present warm AMO. On a GW scale only Solar, aerosol and GHG's are drivers. SST's drive regional vriability and in the case of ENSO periodic global changes.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2013
cont

When it comes to the LIA the effect of TSI gets more complex as wintertime Arctic stratospheric feedback gets involved (warming Strat. vortex due to greater destruction of O3 form cosmic rays) > less intense Trop. Arctic vortex and a -ve AO allowing higher pressure to give colder winters in favoured regions vis Europe. Not global.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
Give me a break!!!! According to the computer simulations the changes in the output of the sun are marginal at best. Per Michael Mann the MWP did not exist so how could increased radiation from the sun be responsible for it????
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2013
When the glaciers cover the roads in the European alpine passes I will be awaiting the AGW explanation for this. No doubt it will still be weather and not climate and there will many explanations as to how this fits into the AGW predictions. Winters in Europe have been getting more severe over the past years and it will be fun to see the Warmists explain the ice flows.


I have just posted on reasons why winters in parts of the NH have recently had severe spells. Reduced TI (sun)i - most recently compounded by reduced Arctic ice, leading to an earlier forming and more intense Siberian high which retrogresses over the Arctic as the winter progresses. HP > therefore divergence at the surface > therefore meridional outflow of cold plunges further south than is usual, in turn guided by PFJ orientation, favouring in particular Europe. Again it matters not a jot if Alpine passes are blocked by snow - as that is regional. The clue is in the word GLOBAL re GW.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2013
Give me a break!!!! According to the computer simulations the changes in the output of the sun are marginal at best. Per Michael Mann the MWP did not exist so how could increased radiation from the sun be responsible for it????


AND that's exactly what I said!

Therefore you have no net increase of heat and so cannot have GLOBAL warming.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2013
It's interesting how AGWites attack the motivation of the scientists who are critical of AGW.
...... .


Hypocrite ..... so you're not doing the same ?...... on a MUCH larger majority of climate scientists?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2013
Since insults and personal attacks are levied so often by those claiming to logical and support science, is that how real scientists act? It must since this web site does nothing to limit their vulgarity.


This is regrettable but entirely ensuant of human nature when bombarded by the same, often mythical obfuscation in the GW debate (exhibited here but now resolved by consensus - sorry but that's how life works - get over it and move on ). Often using denigration by conspiracy (beyond unlikely by probability) and character assassination ( Mr Gore in particular).
The more parrot-like and irrational the comment on here, where answers have already been provided multiple times - the more exasperated those with a grasp of and appreciation of the science become........ AS I said - just human nature. Look to the real cause.
Neinsense99
2 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2013
Face it warmists your imaginary 97% is fading fast. Scientists now realize that they must speak out against this hoax or be painted with the broad brush of scientific malfeasance. Papers with alternate explanations for the earths climate cycles and temperature extremes are now being published daily. Eventually all of that hyperbole that the hoaxers put out there catches up with them.


Tired of arguing? I tend to see the blanket/shotgun sniping and general mocking when there does not appear to be a toehold anymore. This is generally followed by a retreat to a more "friendly" enclave, so conviction can be renewed.

Yet they continually claim that it's the scientists and the 'AGWites' that are religious. It's the old ploy of denying what you don't want to admit about yourself by projecting it on others.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2013
Supposing the climate is changing, why would you presume all climate change must automatically be bad?
Because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Any time you have any kind of action or reaction, there are consequences. Rare are the consequences which are universally good. There end up haves and have-nots. This is fundamental in economics. If you stand to make a lot of money, it has to come from somewhere. If you are at market saturation for a product type and you expect to cut into that market, it will be at the expense of somebody else.

Winners and losers. You can't have winners without losers. And any time you change the game, you have new winners and new losers. And until it settles out again, you have chaos and upheaval.

Chaos and upheaval are generally, also, seen as both opportunity and risk. Which is why Wall Street tends to jump any time instability rears its ugly maw.
Climate and weather aren't based on economics. A warmer globe is greener.

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2013
"Climate and weather aren't based on economics." - UbVonTard

And yet your criticism of climate science is based on economics.

That is what makes you a moron.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 31, 2013
"A warmer globe is greener." - UbVonTard

Expanding Deserts are green in your fantasy universe?
Gmr
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2013
ubavontuba,
Both are systems driven by availability of resources. A depression is not too far from an extinction event.

Winners and losers. You can't have one without the other.

"A warmer globe is greener" - a good motto for Venus.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
"But you reject out of hand those who are critical of AGW as listed in the link?" - RyggTard

Experience has shown us that those opposed to AGW are cranks, fools, Conservative/Libertairan ideologues, and/or Carbon industry shills, or tobacco industry shills looking to become well paid Carbon Industry shills.

They, like you, whine and moan and complain, but don't have the capacity to actually write a scientific paper that supports their politically ideological view of why Climate Science is wrong.

It just is according to you and them because you, and they can't handle the truth.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
"Explain the MWP." - RyggTard

"I can't be guilty of murder.", insisted RyggTard, because you can't explain why some random person in the 1700's died, and if you can't explain that death you can't conclude that the bullet that I fired into that person's brain killed him.

We know the MWP was largely regional, and seems to be related to a reduction in vulcanism.

Like some random death in the 1700's we lack data to produce a definitive cause.

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
"Which is it: you can' t or won't answer the the question about ALL variables that drive climate?" - RyggTard

I will do so once RyggTard list all of the factors that determine the length of a spring to being pushed or pulled.

Intelligence is largely about understanding what does and does not matter.

RyggTard has zero intelligence.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
"Face it warmists your imaginary 97% is fading fast. " - Mr666

Really? I hadn't noticed. Is it now 98%?

ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 01, 2013
The MWP, if it was global can only have been driven by TSI

"If"? Data, posted not too long ago on physorg, from the southern hemisphere shows it was global.
"Only"? Quite presumptuous.
runrig
4 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2013
The MWP, if it was global can only have been driven by TSI

"If"? Data, posted not too long ago on physorg, from the southern hemisphere shows it was global.
"Only"? Quite presumptuous.


My friend.
Think.
"If" it was global then there has to have been a NET increase in surface heating, yes?
Where is that going to come from?
The Sun.
If not Global then there were winners and losers. As well as warm regions there will have been cooler ones. Inference - a redistribution of the SAME net heating.
The data is too sparse to reveal if there was a net (averaged) warming of the climate.
But if it was then it HAS to be the Sun ( given no human CO2, albedo changes, GHG out-gassing).
Comprende?
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
"Climate and weather aren't based on economics." - Uba

And yet your criticism of climate science is based on economics.
When did I supposedly ever criticize climate science based on economics?

That is what makes you a moron.
No, you've just clearly shown you're the moron. But what else can you expect from a chatterbot?

JohnGee
2.5 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2013
Uhh, it's pretty obvious Vendicar is an actual person. I don't know what you are trying to get at, but you can stop spamming it in multiple articles.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
ubavontuba,
Both are systems driven by availability of resources. A depression is not too far from an extinction event.
The availability of arable land and other resources expands with greater warmth.

Winners and losers. You can't have one without the other.
I guess you never heard of a win-win, then.

"A warmer globe is greener" - a good motto for Venus.
Apples and oranges. Venus could never have been like Earth, nor Earth like Venus. Just look at their respective rotational periods, for starters. Venus only rotates once every 243 days. Its day literally lasts longer than its year.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
JohnGee,

Uhh, it's pretty obvious Vendicar is an actual person. I don't know what you are trying to get at, but you can stop spamming it in multiple articles.
Sure, it's clear to a chatterbot that another chatterbot is a person (sarcasm).

And why do you keep PM'ing me with your crazy love letters?

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
"Data, posted not too long ago on physorg, from the southern hemisphere shows it was global. " - RyggTard

Cherry picking. Warming periods are not coincident between hemispheres. Neither are the regional durations.

Poor RyggTard. He lives in a land of self delusion.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
"The availability of arable land and other resources expands with greater warmth." - UbVonTard

Is that why Venus is a lush tropical planet?

Is that why the Sahara is overgrown with jungle?

Is that why the U.S. grain belt is experiencing reduced production due to drought?

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 01, 2013
"The availability of arable land and other resources expands with greater warmth." - Uba

Is that why Venus is a lush tropical planet?
Apples and oranges. Venus doesn't have significant water resources.

Is that why the Sahara is overgrown with jungle?
LOL The Sahara is shrinking! You'd remember this from previous conversations, if you were human.

Is that why the U.S. grain belt is experiencing reduced production due to drought?
LOL Idiot chatterbot. The U.S. grainbelt is enjoying a bumper harvest!

"Record domestic corn output of 14.005 billion bushels this year will more than double inventories before the harvest in 2014, and soybean production will be 3.39 billion bushels, the most ever, ...easing global food prices that are down 9.5 percent from a record in February 2011"

http://www.bloomb...ops.html

The poor chatterbot needs more help with its programming. LOL

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
"If" it was global then there has to have been a NET increase in surface heating, yes?
Where is that going to come from?
The Sun.

But not today?
The Sun is not a parallel for today as we know that currently the Sun is at reduced activity

Is it?
If all is known about the radiometry of the Earth, why were two CALIBRATED radiometer satellite programs proposed, CLARREO and TRUTHS?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2013
Uba: "Is it impossible for you to be in a disagreement and remain civil?"

Uba "LOL Idiot chatterbot."

Uba: "No, you've just clearly shown you're the moron. But what else can you expect from a chatterbot?"

Uba: "The poor chatterbot needs more help with its programming. LOL"

Down the rabbit hole........
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
Uba: "Is it impossible for you to be in a disagreement and remain civil?"

Uba "LOL Idiot chatterbot."

Uba: "No, you've just clearly shown you're the moron. But what else can you expect from a chatterbot?"

Uba: "The poor chatterbot needs more help with its programming. LOL"

Down the rabbit hole........
How quaint. Another chatterbot chimes in.

djr
4.2 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2013
How quaint. Another chatterbot chimes in.

You are very welcome. Always happy to take a minute to lend my shoulder to the effort to push back on the anti science boobies that are poisoning this site. :-) Just a minute though - I have a lot of other pressing priorities.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2013
Always happy to take a minute to lend my shoulder to the effort to push back on the anti science boobies that are poisoning this site.
So as you're about as ant-science as anyone can possibly be, why don't you push off yourself then?

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 01, 2013
"Dr. Ivar Giaever, former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned yesterday as a Fellow from the American Physics Society over its 'incontrovertible' position on global warming"
""In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.""
http://www.thebla...warming/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 01, 2013
"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. "
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop
djr
4.3 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
why don't you push off yourself then?

Nahhh - I'm good - really I am - Happy to throw my two cents in to the mix when I have a minute - learning not to get to tied up - or bothered by you anti science boobs.

"So as you're about as ant-science as anyone"

Yeah - very mature - my kids use to use the old "I know you are - but what I am I" line when they were about 5 years old.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
The Sun is not a parallel for today as we know that currently the Sun is at reduced activity

Is it?
If all is known about the radiometry of the Earth, why were two CALIBRATED radiometer satellite programs proposed, CLARREO and TRUTHS?


Because it's all a conspiracy of course. Stands to reason. It's well withing the main bell of the normal probability curve.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2013
Now now runrig - you know that if we don't know everything about a subject - it must mean we know NOTHING about the subject. Where did you get your science training? Actually a quick bit of google work turned up some interesting reading - I know - you already knew that - but it was neat for me to see how far we are progressing.

http://clarreo.la...mary.pdf
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2013
"The Earth's climate is undoubtedly changing; however, the time scale, consequences and causal attribution remain the subject of significant debate and uncertainty. Detection of subtle indicators from a background of natural variability requires measurements over a time base of decades. " {But it's incontrovertible it is caused by humans? Then why waste the money on TRUTHS?}
"It discusses how meeting these uncertainties facilitate significant improvement in the forecasting abilities of climate models. After discussing the current state of the art, it describes a new satellite mission, called TRUTHS, which enables, for the first time, high-accuracy SI traceability to be established in orbit."

http://rsta.royal...953/4028
rug
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 01, 2013
{But it's incontrovertible it is caused by humans? Then why waste the money on TRUTHS?}

To try and prove to you dumbasses the science is correct so everyone can get onboard with not killing ourselves. Too bad you dumbasses still won't believe it.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 02, 2013
{But it's incontrovertible it is caused by humans? Then why waste the money on TRUTHS?}
To try and prove to you dumbasses the science is correct so everyone can get onboard with not killing ourselves. Too bad you dumbasses still won't believe it.
If accuracy of the measurements needs to be significantly increased to establish a signal "over decades of time," doesn't that imply they're admitting the entire current data set is garbage?

rug
2 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
If accuracy of the measurements needs to be significantly increased to establish a signal "over decades of time," doesn't that imply they're admitting the entire current data set is garbage?

Nope, just means your a dumbass, dumbass.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2013
If accuracy of the measurements needs to be significantly increased to establish a signal "over decades of time," doesn't that imply they're admitting the entire current data set is garbage?

Nope, just means your a dumbass, dumbass.
Says the dumb-ass who doesn't know when to use "you're" and not "your."

ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2013
To try and prove to you dumbasses the science is correct so everyone can get onboard with not killing ourselves. Too bad you dumbasses still won't believe it.


Religion is about belief.

rug agrees AGW is a religion since the science can't prove AGW without the accurate, calibrated data from TRUTHS and CLARREO.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2013
"If record snow and cold in South America are weather, why do these photos like the one above in India, this photo (http://news.yahoo...99.html) and the polar bear on an ice burg representative of AGW?"
"Propaganda."
"Of course."
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2013
Rygg's example of a picture showing floods in India was an example of bad journalism. Rygg constantly confuses journalism and science. That is because Rygg lives in a world of conspiracy and journalism - and has no clue what real science is. This site is so poisoned by anti-science - but it is fine - the scientists soldier on. Don't forget that is was MR166 who brought up the issue of a cold snap in one province of Peru. I guess that would fit the definition of propaganda - don't here Ryggy crying a river about that.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2013
"If record snow and cold in South America are weather, why do these photos like the one above in India, this photo (http://news.yahoo...99.html) and the polar bear on an ice burg representative of AGW?"
"Propaganda."
"Of course."

Do try to distinguish the science from the reporting of the science. Has it ever crossed your mind that sensationalist headlines sell?

It's only propaganda if done by scientists - and most just want to tell it as it is. The few that don't are probably exasperated by your lot continually throwing back stupidities and myths.
It ramps up the game you know. Ever tried arguing with an strident critic(?) - then you do the same, and get more extreme to match. Shame, but just human nature. It does not make it not so, or dishonest. What is dishonest is representing this extreme as the science, and calling it propaganda by scientists.
Neinsense99
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2013
How quaint. Another chatterbot chimes in.

You are very welcome. Always happy to take a minute to lend my shoulder to the effort to push back on the anti science boobies that are poisoning this site. :-) Just a minute though - I have a lot of other pressing priorities.

You mean your parents don't feed you or pack your lunch for your non-basement excursions? Wouldn't it be so much easier to swarm climate change articles right away if they did?
djr
3.3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2013
Wouldn't it be so much easier to swarm climate change articles right away if they did?

That privilege is left to the anti science boobies - you know Nik, and uba, and anti, and you. It does not take one long on Physorg to see who the 'swarmers' are - we just take a few minutes to respond - don't want you to think you own everything.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
Do try to distinguish the science from the reporting of the science.

AGWite scientists don't seem too concerned about the propaganda.

"Elizabeth Shogren of NPR News told gathered scientists that "You haven't made your case yet" to policymakers and the public generally. Fellow panelist and MIT scientist Kerry Emanual replied ""No. You haven't," made the case, referring to the media generally."
http://bigthink.c...rnalists

For the past 30 years, the press has been aiding and abetting AGW. For an NPR reporter to state science hasn't made the cans and for a scientist to blame a compliant press is quite enlightening.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
"Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. In their minds, criticism of methodology is nothing but the monstrous product of "conservative think-tanks and misinformation campaigns by the oil and coal lobby," which they believe is their duty to expose. In contrast, dramatization of climate shift is defended as being useful from the standpoint of educating the public. "
"The principle that drives other branches of science should be equally applicable to climate research: dissent drives continued development, and differences of opinion are not unfortunate matters to be kept within the community. Silencing dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more well-informed than generally assumed. "
http://www.spiege...376.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
"In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails."
http://disinfo.co...g-start/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
"The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday."
"80 percent of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows," it proclaimed."
"the IPCC's banner claim was not the work of prestigious and disinterested scientists toiling away in a laboratory, but of hacks with a political agenda and direct financial stake in the issue."
"The IPCC sees nothing wrong with this arrangement."
"Claims of balance are hardly credible when the process is infiltrated by ideologues and industry insiders looking to apply the veneer of science to their craven grab for other people's cash."

Read more: http://www.washin...dl9WKVG9
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
"In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on SCIENTISTS and journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and counter-claim".

She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening." "
http://www.sott.n...-Experts

But according to AGWites here, the journalists are to blame for the hype.
But according to AGw
runrig
4 / 5 (5) Sep 02, 2013
Rygg:
That lengthy multiple post merely goes to agree with what I posted lower down - thanks for that.

Some climate scientists are pushing back. Good for them.
MR166
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
"The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday."
"80 percent of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public polices......"

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Make hay while the sun shines" or the wind is blowing for that matter.

HeHe!
MR166
1 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2013
National Pubic Radio is just another subset of the Ministry of Truth. To expect them to do anything but tow the party line is ludicrous.
Neinsense99
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2013
Wouldn't it be so much easier to swarm climate change articles right away if they did?

That privilege is left to the anti science boobies - you know Nik, and uba, and anti, and you. It does not take one long on Physorg to see who the 'swarmers' are - we just take a few minutes to respond - don't want you to think you own everything.

You confuse me with the commenters that I have repeatedly opposed? Perhaps your reading is careless or your sarcasm identification is lacking, or both.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 02, 2013
You confuse me with the commenters that I have repeatedly opposed?

apologies if that is the case - I was just responding to this comment -

"Wouldn't it be so much easier to swarm climate change articles right away if they did?"

Perhaps you are correct - and my sarcasm meter was just set too high.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 03, 2013
How is this for moving the goal posts.

"The very inactive season so far has been a bit of a head-scratcher," Crawford said in an e-mail interview. Air temperatures from the Caribbean to Africa have been warmer than normal this year, reducing the instability in the atmosphere that drives storm development, he said."

http://sunshineho...ricanes/

The only thing that changes faster than the weather is the basis of "Climate Science"!
Neinsense99
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 03, 2013
"But you reject out of hand those who are critical of AGW as listed in the link?" - RyggTard

Experience has shown us that those opposed to AGW are cranks, fools, Conservative/Libertairan ideologues, and/or Carbon industry shills, or tobacco industry shills looking to become well paid Carbon Industry shills.

They, like you, whine and moan and complain, but don't have the capacity to actually write a scientific paper that supports their politically ideological view of why Climate Science is wrong.

It just is according to you and them because you, and they can't handle the truth.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


It's so pathetic I'm tempted to link to a sad violin clip.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2013
Hey MR166 - are you the same person as NotParker. Old NotParker used to run the sunshinhours blog - and would always link to it in comments. We have been wondering what happened to NotParker.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2013
Neinsense - you confused me with the obtuse nature of your comments. I think I understand the situation well now. We argue in support of the science - and the boobies go around and around in circles with anti science drivel.
MR166
1.1 / 5 (16) Sep 03, 2013
DJR I am notnotparker. MR166
djr
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2013
Ahhh - interesting coincidence that you link to the blog that NotParker runs - and used to link to all the time - small world.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2013
How is this for moving the goal posts.
"The very inactive season so far has been a bit of a head-scratcher," Crawford said in an e-mail interview. Air temperatures from the Caribbean to Africa have been warmer than normal this year, reducing the instability in the atmosphere that drives storm development, he said."

http://sunshineho...ricanes/

The only thing that changes faster than the weather is the basis of "Climate Science"!


It depends where the warm is in the atmosphere - on the face of it as read that comment is nonsense as warmer air at the surface (as would warmer SST's) would make the air more unstable not less. Warmer air would need to be in the mid Trop to make it less unstable.
Meanwhile it just goes to highlight the ignorance of meteorology and reflexive attacking of the science. Yes it's complex and weather is more so than climate as you are looking at the "noise" in the system.
Howhot
4 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2013
After some 400+ messages, all the deniers can say is; "The only thing that changes faster than the weather is the basis of "Climate Science"" ... haha so funny I forgot to laugh. Completely ignoring the subject; "Human activity is 'almost certainly' driving climate change", which I might add is progressively getting worst the more we delay taking action.

We are talking actions that our oil and coal loving deniers of AGW will hate. Actions like stop every coal plant as fast as possible and construct renewable power sources in their place. That could prevent an additional 20Gigatons of CO2 from being dumped into the atmosphere like so much crap in a toilet.

"World CO2 Emissions Set New Record in 2012 at 31.6 Gigatons; On Current Path, World Locks in Dangerous, 2 Degree + Warming Before 2029" Believe. Yes, the sky really is falling folks.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Sep 11, 2013
"World CO2 Emissions Set New Record in 2012 at 31.6 Gigatons; On Current Path, World Locks in Dangerous, 2 Degree + Warming Before 2029" Believe. Yes, the sky really is falling folks.
Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

So, just who are the "deniers" now?

Howhot
3.8 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2013
Ubba, you can call yourself what ever you want, but that's not going to stop another annual 31.6+ Gigatons of the greenhouse gas CO2 from being dumped into the atmosphere. An amount so large as to DWARF all natural sources of atmospheric CO2 like volcanoes, for forest fires, deep-sea releases combined! So, just who are the duhhh "deniers" now?

Statistics and lairs, when you use a URL tool wrong, the results are wrong. Nice try though.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2013
Ubba, you can call yourself what ever you want, but that's not going to stop another annual 31.6+ Gigatons of the greenhouse gas CO2 from being dumped into the atmosphere. An amount so large as to DWARF all natural sources of atmospheric CO2 like volcanoes, for forest fires, deep-sea releases combined! So, just who are the duhhh "deniers" now?

Statistics and lairs, when you use a URL tool wrong, the results are wrong. Nice try though.
So explain why CO2 keeps going up, up, up...

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

All the while temperatures are down, down, down....

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Maybe this CO2 stuff isn't so special after all?

Howhot
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2013
You know @Ubbatubba, I'm going to agree with you; "Maybe this CO2 stuff isn't so special after all?" No it's not that special. In fact, it is essential for life on this planet. It just like Nitrogen, water and everything else. However, it's a by product of burning what would normally be sequestered carbon (carbon the Earth would store for billions of years into our future). Instead the industrial age has release this from the carbon sink (by burning fossils primarily), and the atmosphere can't get rid of it as fast as it is created.

The primary sink of CO2 are the oceans, and by adding more CO2 to oceans you create carbolic acid, making the oceans acid and deadly to life. In the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, creating global warming and climate change. Its amazing all of the changes an annual release of 31.6 billion tons of CO2 will produce on a planet whose breathable atmosphere is only about mile or so deep.

It's a small world Ubba, do you wan't to screw it up?
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 12, 2013
Neinsense - you confused me with the obtuse nature of your comments. I think I understand the situation well now. We argue in support of the science - and the boobies go around and around in circles with anti science drivel.

If only those circles became a death spiral for the ideology behind their 'science'.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2013
It's a small world Ubba, do you wan't to screw it up?
Spare me the drama, hypocrite. If you're serious about wanting to save the planet from CO2, unplug. But no-o-o. You won't do that. Wil you?
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2013
Always happy to take a minute to lend my shoulder to the effort to push back on the anti science boobies that are poisoning this site.
So as you're about as ant-science as anyone can possibly be, why don't you push off yourself then?


And what would be wrong with entomology ("ant-science")?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.