Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Boston]

sounds like you got Pdiddly and a chip on your shoulder. Try this one and then feel free to continue complaining If you'd not been to lazy to actually contact the IPCC you might have found that the people who actually lead up the various efforts would have directed you to the data base they often use themselves, found here. Why am I not surprised you didn't do any leg work. 6.5 petabytes of data Operated by something like 2,000 computational scientists. Its somewhere in the top five maybe largest data bases in the world. The data the IPCC collates isn't hard to find nor is it spread out all over the place. Nice try though, not sure why its so important for you to find a flaw even if its got nothing to do with climate change. Seems that its a rather lame attempt to make it personal rather than stick to the subject ;-)


http://www.mad.zmaw.de/wdc-for-climate/

I guess it just goes to prove once again
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

Although I'm sure the deniers in the squad would love to argue anything but climate science I do find the academic arrogance almost refreshing to the typical CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas tripe.

Cheers and best of luck arguing that one of the top ten largest data bases in the world isn't grand central for climate research. I suppose I could also have linked you to the library of congress since that also has a pretty large base for climate studies but I'm pretty sure the IPCC base links to the world data center for climate as well, which again just goes to show that some people just aren't doing there homework.

Love
B

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by RayThackeray

Eh? Yobernacle, I understand your opinion, but you need to re-read what Boston said, let's get it right. Laughing Your Arse Off with entirely wrong end of the stick makes others LMOA at you.

To be accurate, Boston said that both a handful and even a million years sample (I'm paraphrasing) is not sufficient, and he appears to have been entirely consistent and, may I say, scientific about it.

It's your turn to comment on his central argument of the rate of change, which is absolutely frightening, unique in the records and far worse than any scientists have predicted.

If you want to attack science, as you frequently do, in this case you should be complaining that climate scientists have been criminally conservative.

i posted a National Geographic article apparently friendly to warmers and yet they reported that the tree ring data hasn't shown temperature increases since 1960, but the "scientists" ignore that data and show the hockey stick spiked graph of manipulated data instead. And that they colluded together to publish false data. I accuse these "scientists" of fraud, and I know they are liars, and are psuedo scientists and enemies of the truth. Anybody who accepts their data as truth is naive and ignorant or equally guilty if knowingly supporting lies. They are enemy. I don't attack science or scientific method. I attack psuedo science and psuedo scientists who perpetrate fraud with the agenda of enslaving the human race. I am not alone and not in a minority. Eventually most people will understand whats being attempted and hpoefully before it is too late.

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Boston

sounds like you got Pdiddly and a chip on your shoulder. Try this one and then feel free to continue complaining If you'd not been to lazy to actually contact the IPCC you might have found that the people who actually lead up the various efforts would have immediately directed you to the data base found here. Why am I not surprised you didn't do any leg work.

http://www.mad.zmaw.de/wdc-for-climate/

I guess it just goes to prove once again
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

Although I'm sure the deniers in the squad would love to argue anything but climate science I do find the academic arrogance almost refreshing to the typical CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas tripe.

Cheers and best of luck arguing that one of the top ten largest data bases in the world isn't grand central for climate research. I suppose I could also have linked you to the library of congress since that also has a pretty large base for climate studies but I'm pretty sure the IPCC base links to the world data center for climate as well, which again just goes to show that some people just aren't doing there homework.

Nobody argues Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas. It's just not an important one. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas by 95%. Co2 is only a few % and only a smidgen of CO2 is manmade. ERGO...greenhouse effect is not manmade. 1+1=2. 0=0

[Yobarnacle]

The agenda is to create a carbon tax to enslave everybody. Theres gonna be blood!

[Frosty]

Carbon tax can not be put on anything but fuel , directly relative to how much carbon you make . If it were to be put on an Item then fuel consumption would be encouraged with a get my moneys worth mind set.

Consequently artificially increasing an already ballot box hurting fuel is unlikely.

[hoytedow]

Anybody who would vote for a tax on himself is a fool.

[RayThackeray]

Wow, I can understand your rejecting the conclusions on climate science - that's your prerogative. But to reject that there is any warming of the Earth at all, based on a single anomoly (which you still need to cite)? Astonishing.

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

i posted a National Geographic article apparently friendly to warmers and yet they reported that the tree ring data hasn't shown temperature increases since 1960, but the "scientists" ignore that data and show the hockey stick spiked graph of manipulated data instead. And that they colluded together to publish false data. I accuse these "scientists" of fraud, and I know they are liars, and are psuedo scientists and enemies of the truth. Anybody who accepts their data as truth is naive and ignorant or equally guilty if knowingly supporting lies. They are enemy. I don't attack science or scientific method. I attack psuedo science and psuedo scientists who perpetrate fraud with the agenda of enslaving the human race. I am not alone and not in a minority. Eventually most people will understand whats being attempted and hpoefully before it is too late.

[Boston]

there's no logic to it Ray, I don't even bother responding to the worst of it anymore, which is rare, but when faced with such complete ignorance of the science or even the remotest understanding of how interwoven all these discoveries really are, then its kinda hard to really want to bother. Climate science covers a wide range of disciplines, which just so happen to all agree on a huge percentage of the fundamentals. In short, they are called deniers for a reason. Its just exactly that, denial of the facts.

can't wait to hear back from my friend Diddly, I guess citing one of the top ten largest data banks in the world might have set his argument back a little. Oh well I'm sure he'll get around that with another barrage of personal insults and academic arrogance. Seems he even takes offense at citing the work of others, yet claims to be a scientist himself. Right. But its somehow offensive to his sensitivities for someone to support there position with citations and quotes. Brilliant.

Oh well. Fortunately denier numbers are falling, ( worldwide that is ) and action plans are taking shape. Lets just hope its not to late.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Carbon tax can not be put on anything but fuel , directly relative to how much carbon you make . If it were to be put on an Item then fuel consumption would be encouraged with a get my moneys worth mind set.

Consequently artificially increasing an already ballot box hurting fuel is unlikely.

A tax on fuel is a tax on everything because the increased cost to transport goods gets passed onto the consumer in the price of the item transported.

[Boston]

I disagree completely with a carbon tax, the cost for the clean up isn't the responsibility of the consumer. Its the responsibility of the companies that produce the pollution. And they should be required to clean it up without just foisting off the cost to the consumer. Gives them something constructive to do with those windfall profits and makes room for responsible companies to step into the energy sector.

It would be like forcing the consumer to pay for the problems arising from the use of genetically modified foods. The health costs are begining to mount and its only going to get worse, not only in that category but also in the environmental cost. Ole Monsanto is starting to loose case after case, so will the oil and gas industry, eventually. We have viable alternatives now, I'm using them, I'm not sure why anyone isn't. Hell I might even have my home heating system set up by next year so that not only will I be driving on free fuel, I'll be heating my home with it as well. Project for the summer. Build a DIY proof of concept vertical axis wind turbine, check to see the actual return on wind in this area.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

I disagree completely with a carbon tax, the cost for the clean up isn't the responsibility of the consumer. Its the responsibility of the companies that produce the pollution. And they should be required to clean it up without passing just foisting off the cost to the consumer. Gives them something constructive to do with those windfall profits and makes room for responsible companies to step into the energy sector.

All costs are passed onto the consumer. You don't understand the basic tenets of capitalism.

[Boston]

I understand them completely, I'm referring to legally preventing them from passing the cost of clean up along. I'm OK with the old Standard Oil groups stranglehold on the energy industry being broken. Finally. Its long overdue and its the only way we are going to see meaningful change anytime soon.

Why do you think the industry spends so many millions on the disinformation campaign as well as the millions bribing gubment officials. They know there screwing up the planet. They know lots of other industries have been held accountable. They're going to keep up the pollution only for as long as we let them, so lets not let them.

There's lots of better ways to reduce carbon emissions than to tax the consumer. Its not the consumers fault they've haven't been offered any alternatives. Its DIY alternative fuels or nothing. Thats BS. The oil and gas industry should be held accountable for its crimes and driven out of the business in the process. A mandatory reduction is fossil fuels production is the only way to end there grip on the energy industry. Capitalism/free market has found immediate solutions to any shortage of dino based oil and the algae systems are moving forward, but slowly because of the controlled cost of oil in this country.

[hoytedow]

Every industry is responsible to clean up after itself. All the cost of that is passed along to the customer. It is built into the purchase price of the goods produced. Just because you don't have subtle detection skills doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Name one example to the contrary.

[Yobarnacle]

Whose the deniers now?
They are threatening to tax everything. Even farm livestock for methane flatulence! I'm not kidding.
Plastics contain hydro carbons. They'll tax that too. This whole fraud about CO2 driving climate change is setting up for the 8ball in the corner pocket. A carbon tax. Game over!

[Boston]

thats assuming the industry is allowed to continue business as usual. I'm not suggesting the oil and gas industry should be allowed to do that in any way shape or form. They've grown to large and to powerful, they control gubment more then gubment controls them. I say gubment should be by the people, for the people and of the people. Time to take back our gubment, throw out the corporate oligarchy and begin to build our country again.

I'm not suggesting that the oil and gas companies most responsible for the destruction of our ecosystem should be allowed to continue business at all. All 7 of the spin off from Standard Oil should be removed from the game and they should be responsible for there own mess.