Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[Boston]

;-) good plan GTO go tell all "dem smat people" in your orifice that your a climate denier, ahahahaahhhaahahahahahahahhahhahahahhaha

oh to be a fly on the wall for that conversation, unless of course you work for the energy industry, in which case let the denial fly. While 98% of climate scientists agree, only about 50% of petroleum geologists do, so who you going to believe, the guys who study the issue ? or the guys who profit from denying it ?

PS
speaking of puny minds, your analogy conveniently ignored WHY it warmed up. Ahahaahahahahahahhaahhahhahhahahahahahahah oh and the guys got a real bang out of your ice melting theory . Its also obvious your doing the Gish Gallop over there, first mistakenly thinking that we are beginning a warming cycle, when an analysis clearly indicates we are at the TOP of the cycle and should "most likely" have been headed downhill by now. Then failing to admit the error simply taking off on a tangent about ice melt. Good plan, but not working. In todays climate system the predominant forcing is CO2 and that CO2 can and has been directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. <------------ thats a period at the end of that sentence. Done deal. Its a simple chemical end product of combustion. The production of CO2. Have your colleagues explain it to you cause clearly its just not sinking in.

Also you might want to look into the High Permian extinction event and learn what happens to our climate when CO2 increases or maybe even look into ice permeability, since your stuck on ice these days. Assuming that is your actually interested in why 98% of climate scientists think the way they do

BNTII
apparently your not listening to our friend Christy, founder of that one deniers group, he used to write for the tobacco industry and still argues that smoking is good for you. Oh and I gotta completely agree with Cat on this one, I'm not sure I've ever even met anyone who had lung cancer, who didn't also smoke. Its a very clear correlation.

Troy
actually, many in the climate science community are saying its a done deal. The basics of the theory are extremely well established, granted it will always be a theory and in that sense its always open to change, however I've listened to lecture after lecture up at CU by many prominent climate scientists, hell I regularly bump into these guys in the cafeteria and the local coffee shops and I hear some very strong terms when discussing the chances of climate science being wrong on this one. Rare in science sure, but this issue has been studied to death and the basics are very well understood.

I've got an option of starting classes again this fall and might just make climate science my focus this time around. Not sure, gotta brush up on my math skills first but would be interesting since the subject is so damn interesting. Particularly climate history, things like ice permeability and climate denial, policy procrastination and what if anything can halt the impending disaster.

Cheers
B

[Bamby]

This has really turned into a worthless meaningless thread IMHO!!! What is the value of continued crying CO2,CO2.... without offering any meaningful realistic suggestions to wean ourselves away from carbon based fuels..... Its worthless to attempt to discuss the topic simply because all involved parties are staunchly following their own chosen political party lines.

On another interesting note, Japan is to Burn Highly-Radioactive Debris from the Fukushima incident!! Talk about man-made pollution the atmosphere that has a very real chance of affecting all life on earth as we know it. Fact is as long as tons of unprotected radioactive materials sit upon the top of a disheveled building on the verge of following down is threatening all physical life one earth I can see little reason to even contemplate or worry about the politics of so called global warming or CO2 at this moment.

[Boston]

NO WAY

THIS THREAD IS AWESOME,

and there are several threads dealing with possible solutions, this one covers the question, are humans to blame ;-)

This thread is perfect, its certainly showing the ludicrous nature of the deniers nonscience/nonsense very effectively. Everything from some ridiculous view that smoking isn't tied to lung cancer to deniers quoting so called scientists who are demonstrably on the take from the oil and gas industry. Its a fantastic example of how completely ridiculous the denial machines logic really is. We've got deniers who don't even comprehend the basics yet insist there view is correct. Little things like "ice melting causes warming" ahahahahahahhhahaha, or that all that excess CO2 "isn't" from the use of fossil fuels. We get arguments about everything but the actual science, its political, its a scam, its all happened before, its a gigantic conspiracy <-------- my personal fave, water vapor drives temp, CO2 isn't a forcing agent, Ahahahahahhahahahahahhhaahha

The arguments presented by the deniers are the best argument FOR climate shift theory there could ever be. THIS THREAD IS PERFECT, just check some of the incredibly ignorant things being claimed by the deniers and tell me you haven't busted out in hysterics regularly.

Originally Posted by GTO

Watched a Discovery show, clearly makes this one an expert on climate shift, particularly since he came away from it thinking

According to the show, <----------- again a half hour suddenly makes for a definitive study

we are obviously on the heating side of the cycle.

and when it was made clear that we already hit the average peak temp for the time period for which we actually have data, several thousand years ago, this denier went on to explain how ice drives warming !!!!!! ahhaahahahahahahhahhahaha

Couldn't be a better example of how ludicrous some of these deniers beliefs really are. The simple truth Bamby is that the thread is a treasure trove of failed denier arguments, a virtual comedy show that simply couldn't be believed unless its actually experienced.

Even the effort to apply a political agenda to it all again by suggesting the the scientific opinions are based on a political affiliation, lend a strong argument that the deniers simply refuse to acknowledge the scientific findings and would rather believe its some political conspiracy. Ahahhahahahahhahahaahhahhahhhahhahahahahaha

personally I think both parties politicians should be strung up by there vitals and left hanging as an example to the next steaming pile of politicians who wish to enter orifice. Kinda goofs up the whole theory when most scientists refuse to affiliate themselves with either party eh.

And then there is the constant effort to suggest something else is a bigger or badder problem, as if the climate change issue which results in an uninhabitable world is the only effort we're making to wreck the place. Of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean we ignore one disaster simply because we've got a few of them to deal with.

Yup nuclear sucks, and our track record with it is pretty abysmal, but our track record dealing with climate shift is just as bad and worse yet, leads to mass extinction, in the not to distant future.

The thread is a stellar example of denial at its worst/best, and serves to show anyone with an open mind just how silly and ridiculous the deniers arguments really are. I for one give it two thumbs up.

I believe our readers can decide for themselves if the deniers are willing to discuss the actual science or if there Gish Galloping around it to any song they can dream up.

personally I wouldn't miss this thread for the world, its virtually turned into the morning funnies for which I am most grateful, awesome way to start my day. If only I could get some of these guys to do a few stick figures my mornings would be complete. ;-)
Cheers
B

[Frosty]

This thread is hilarious. Mostly about Yobi nipping off to the store (it takes 20 minutes) and wether Troy is on night shift or not.

Like two boxers in the ring they are exhausted and have forgotten what they are doing there. Niether reads each others posts.

Bos comes in occasionally when he gets up in the morning and gets them going again.

Like two old antique dolls with a pull string Co2 Co2 Co2 me me me me.

Its enlightening to see what your life can lower to. It a warning for all of us.

[Yobarnacle]

Frosty
I didn't know you were a pundit. Thanks for explaining Troy's and my posts to Boston. Nobody else needed an explanation, but Bostons brain is so full of CO2, it MUST be oxygen starved!

[Yobarnacle]

Boston keeps inventing and setting up straw men so he can knock them down.

Boston thinks everybody here must be stupid.

He believes because he CLAIMS deniers say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, or isn't a by product of combustion, or that none of CO2 is manmade, that means they had to have said it.

Nobody on this thread said any of that, except Boston. But if anybody ever would say those things, Boston can put them in their place quick enough.

Actually I think he doesn't often read the posts. Doesn't actually respond to what is written. Just responds to stuff he imagines people think. Mostly, he just likes doodling with the emotes!

My guess, Boston would fit right in with climatologists if he gets the credentials. He likes to ignore the facts, and is similarly remote from reality all ready!

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle
Climate is complicated. Climate models are simplified, OVER simplified. Seizing on one factor alone, CO2, is over simplified. That's bad science!

Claiming the science is "settled", Is bad science!

Rejecting anybody that disagrees, is bad science!

You say, the vast majority of scientists agree with the bad science. I think those who disagree are keeping a low profile. But if EVERYBODY agreed with the bad science, it's still BAD science.

And I think it has a political agenda!

There, I didn't quote anybody that takes oil money. Just me myself. And I don't get a dime from oil companies.

[end quote]

Originally Posted by troy2000

No one claims the science is 'settled.' Like all legitimate science, climatology is in a constant state of flux as new research is done and more data gets collected and analyzed. But nothing coming in has yet refuted the basic premise that climate change is real, and related to anthropological activity.

Why would those who disagree keep a low profile? In case you hadn't noticed, the surest route to stardom in science is to prove your peers wrong on an important subject. And you'll notice that Lindzen hasn't lost any government funding for his research, in spite of being a very noisy climate change 'heretic.'

You're trying to put the cart before the horse. There may be lots of people who have adopted a political agenda, based on the data and conclusions. But that's bass-ackwards from basing the data and conclusions on a political agenda.....

Troy
You didn't respond to the first part of my post, only the latter part.

What about the over simplification, assigning CO2 as the dominant factor in warming, and ignoring all others?

[Submarine Tom]

This thread IS fantastic.

Transparency is the word that comes to mind. I'm starten to see right through some of you nice folks.

Carry on righteous brothers.

YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Boston]

Frosty, ole man, I'm not egging them on, I've actually suggested Troy save his breath. Yabs lunacy shouldn't be discouraged, its an absolutely perfect example of the ludicrous nonsense/nonscience that dominates the deniers thinking. What better example of ignorance could there possibly be than to have someone come in and not only deny climate shift but the tie between lung cancer and smoking ? Its laughably perfect, rolling on the floor hilarious actually, soon as I realized just how mixed up he really was, or any of them for that mater, I knew what a perfect example they'd make to the readers. Its bloody hilarious mate, I'm not egging them on, on the contrary, I'm stepping back and just letting them go. Although I think Troy is completely wasting his time, I do appreciate his efforts, and I gotta admit, I don't think people like Yab should be discouraged from posting there lunacy on here, as I said, what better example could there possibly be, yah just couldn't make this sh!t up.

The threads perfectly hilarious, worthy of syndication actually, I swear, if some of these guys could do cartoons to go with there BS my bet it is would go international in no time. Hell I got a cartoon artist friend of mine, maybe she'd be interested in the idea. I say let em rant and flail, its a gold mine of deniers idiocy that no writer could just make up no mater how much money was involved. Pure comedy at its finest.

Love
B

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Troy
You didn't respond to the first part of my post, only the latter part.

What about the over simplification, assigning CO2 as the dominant factor in warming, and ignoring all others?

Again, you're the one who's oversimplifying. No one 'assigned' CO2 as the dominant factor in anthropomorphic warming; scientists determined that CO2 is the dominant factor. Big difference.... and they didn't ignore other factors when making that determination.

I'm not going to keep going on this, Yob. I made my point a long time ago, and I'm not interested in being your sounding board so you can keep repeating your unscientific claims.

[Yobarnacle]

Well, we'll wait and see. Ya'll are going to be real embarassed within 2 to 5 years.

Except Boston. He's very DETERMINED! LOL He'll still be claiming it's CO2 when the temperatures are falling. They expect this newest sun cycle to be similar to the one that began the little ice age in 1600s.

Most solar scientists believe the sun is far and large the driver of the climate. I think it makes perfect sense.

Anthropogenic CO2 driving climate, seems to me, the same sort of "We just KNOW it's bad for the climate and we are going to PROVE it!" type of science that matches "We just KNOW tobacco causes cancer!" but they have never been able to prove it. So, they "Link" it to cancer. That's the best they can do, but it ain't science or proven. No ethical scientist claims it's proven. It's just feelings it's true.

Okay. We'll see. Won't take long with the sun.

Of course climatologists say it will take a hundred years to prove they are right about CO2. LOL. Pretty safe bet none of us will be here in 100 years.

But the sun will prove the CO2 theory wrong over very few years. Because the sun is powerfull, unlike CO2s 38 parts per million CO2! HaHa!

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Again, you're the one who's oversimplifying. No one 'assigned' CO2 as the dominant factor in anthropomorphic warming; scientists determined that CO2 is the dominant factor. Big difference.... and they didn't ignore other factors when making that determination.

I'm not going to keep going on this, Yob. I made my point a long time ago, and I'm not interested in being your sounding board so you can keep repeating your unscientific claims.

I'm being very scientific in my claims.

Determined means pontificated. "It is because I SAY it is!"

Definition of DETERMINED
1: having reached a decision : firmly resolved <determined to be a pilot>
2a : showing determination <a determined effort> b : characterized by determination <will deter all but the most determined thief — Security World>


like the label below, cause they couldn't PROVE it, so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco...rning_messages

Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966–1970)

Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970–1985)

[Yobarnacle]

But requiring such labeling is a violation of freedom of speech. See below!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco...rning_messages


In August 2011, five tobacco companies have filed a lawsuit against the FDA in an effort to reverse the new warning mandate. Tobacco companies claim that being required to promote government anti-smoking campaigns by placing the new warnings on packaging violates the companies' free speech rights.[22] Additionally, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, Commonwealth Brands Inc., Liggett Group LLC and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc. claim that the graphic labels are an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco companies to engage in anti-smoking advocacy on the government's behalf.[23] A First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, is representing the tobacco companies in the case, contending requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.[24] The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation have also filed a brief in the suit, arguing that the labels infringe on commercial free speech and could lead to further government intrusion if left unchallenged.[25]

In November 2011, Federal judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily halted the new labels, likely delaying the requirement that tobacco companies display the labels. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately could decide the matter.[26]

On February 29, 2012, Leon ruled that the labels violate the right to free speech in the First Amendment.[27]


YAY for FREEDOM! Score ONE for us Constitutionists!

[Yobarnacle]

Originally Posted by Pericles

Enjoy.

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

Where's all the melting Arctic ice eh?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Anyone for a Producer Gas fueled, petrol engined boat It could run on driftwood and boatyard offcuts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/2...as-and-my-suv/

I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

All the best,

Perry

Boston asked for stick figures. I just HAD to post this cartoon from:

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

[Bamby]

OK Well what's your thoughts on this....

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

Read more: We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy

Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity

The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.

There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.

Read More: Green Climate Fund

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

Read more: Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2

Here's another similar mirror thread going on elsewhere for your entertainment: Calling all Global Warming.....

Haw, Haw Success got past the forbidden word checker..