What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

Jim we have been over all of that before
you are misrepresenting and filling in with half truths again
not sure who's benefit that last was for but once again I am not going to go over this whole thread again
we covered what percentage of the greenhouse gasses co2 is
we covered feed backs and it was you who had to be grilled before you even realized what a feedback was
we covered the "fact" that 50 or so years ago rapid climate change made predictions concerning were warming would occur most dramatically and by how much more than the average
your still clinging to your tropical troposphere bs and obviously have some memory loss probably associated with an all meet diet
so Im going to let that one slide

I also am going to agree with Guillo as you call him
this whole thing is endlessly entertaining
were in the world do you guys come up with this crap
oh wait
it was already discussed and shown to be the industry spin pages

Im writing all this with a big grin going cause the worming and squirming is just priceless
I remember it was virtually the first thing I noticed when I started writing on this thread

someone a while back suggested you guys work of a list of bs you found somewhere or something cause its the same old tired arguments coming up all the time. Cant you please come up with something that at least requires rubbing a few brain cells together.

I do sincerely say thanks cause today I could have done a few things but instead I sat down and laughed at nearly every post
thanks guys
was a great pick me up

best
B

[Zed]

thats kinda the funny part
the debate at least among scientists is over
there is no viable alternative argument
there is no coherent alternative theory

Even if that was correct, that by default means that the pro argument is correct? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Those who are saying it ain't so are saying that the case has not been proven, therefore it is what it is ---> nothing to prove! Its the the pro camp that are proffering the theories and are in need of proof. They would have the world turning inside out to try an attain a politically unachievable goal on a time line that renders the attempt useless anyway! Current oil flows will be around 50% of today's flows on current decline rates in around 5 years. That is stunning and far out strips any CO2 reduction targets, that problem will solve itself before you can prove its the issue... therefore the issue becomes how do we survive such a rapid and what will be stressful transition that we are not prepared for! Stop arguing about the ship sinking, that debate is the one that is over, it is what it is, we now need to focus on the more immediate problem of replacement. The market will soon drive prices high again and if we can keep government from fecking the process up the market will deliver answers. Do you realise that your evil oil companies that supposedly fund this climate change denying science are among the leading investors in alternates. They see themselves as energy companies and believe me when they see an viable alternate they will move to exploit it. The only demon oil companies are the NOC's, and surprise, surprise we have government running market breaking political agendas here! Anyway there is an energy crisis dead ahead thanks to our insane political systems and this diversionary BS.

[Boston]

thats why we call you guys deniers
cuase you ignore all teaching and blither on while making the same old mistakes

proof
is an absolute
science seldom deals with absolutes
its all about what is most likely to be true and what is less likely to be true
the simplest thing Ive tried to explain here yet
and you still dont get it

I do however hope you are right on the money when it comes to oil availability in the near future
the difficulties Detroit faces today I hope will lead to a disassociation between the oil and gas giants and the automobile industry
one leading to the advent of a viable electric vehicle

[Zed]

Don't be so condescending ---> I get it but you need to get this ! Even if you are right its irrelevant, so why waste time on it --> solve the energy issue and you solve the climate issue. Strangle the economy in the name of the climate issue and you solve nothing! I'm afraid that your the one that don't get it! Science is wanking on about the ship sinking and arguing the cause while all we really need is something else that floats. Divert the effort to something positive that will help regardless of which side of this stinking pile of political BS is right.

[Zed]

P.S.

Once an economically wounded population starts to understand what "cap in trade" etc means to them, I'd not be yelling the green message to loudly! They are going to turn on you and nail the greenies to the wall, at this point the greens don't realise how much damage they have done by over claiming and over playing their hand. It will not be fair but mobs rarely are, it will be a savage backlash that will set the movement back further than if it trod a smarter path in the first place. Sadly you can see this one coming.

[Boston]

actually its not science thats doing the arguing
the science is in
debates over
there is an extremely high likely hood that petroleum based co2 has significantly altered the atmospheric chemistry with a net result of there being an alteration in the climate norm

debates over
has been for a while
thats why Im laughing so hard and having such a great time while a few late comers jump up and down that they missed the boat on this one
they got one cheer leader and its industry that is guarding its profits

the political bs is what came in after the science was decided not before
thing is the politicians didnt like the science so they formed a few comity's, finally ending up in the IPCC which as fate would have it "didnt" follow there funding and concluded that the theory of rapid global climate change is most likely to be true with additional research confirming there original report

thats another reason its so funny to hear deniers claiming that the IPCC is just saying what it is cause thats what there funders wanted em to. Its exactly not what there founders wanted em to say. Reorge the idiot Bush hated the idea of actually taking action to slow the damage done by so much co2 in the atmosphere. Clinton wasnt exactly to high on the idea either.

then industry grabbed up the same fools who defended the tobacco clowns and began a serious campaign to confuse the science. Just look at all the deniers pages. My god man its a free for all of bs out there, hell its a free for all of bs in here.
the science is in
the debate is long over
and the class has taken the test and 97 out of 100 or em were most likely to have it right
yet the worming and squirming goes on indefinitely while oil and gas industry laughs its way to the bank

your right we should all just admit that the science was in nearly 50 years ago when it was able to make solid predictions as to what and where the effects of co2 would be in the atmosphere and move on

its that moving on part that has the fucktard politicians hopping stupid over what changes to make
so rather than make any and alter there self aggrandizing status quo they pretend there is still more research that needs doing

you want to move on to an overpopulation thread Ild be happy to lend my two cents but this ones about climate change mate
so its what we do over here
myself and a few phd's have come in from time to time and made efforts to explain as best we can the theory and why it has been so widely accepted
then there are the deniers
ya cant tell or teach em anything
they blatantly refuse even the simplest most well established aspects of science
and they go round and round with the same old tired arguments basically proving that they just fail to comprehend the rebuttals to those arguments which the vast majority of scientists were able to conclude in most cases years and years ago.
its one of the funniest things I have ever had the pleasure to be involved in,
I swear my face hurts from grinning sometime at the bizarre responses and ridiculous assertions

[Boston]

your post script is far more political in nature than environmental and might be better aplied to the economics page and how it effects live aboard yachties
I for one actually dont see any mas rioting or lynchings for any but politicians in the near future

[Zed]

You are right... bark away dogs, I have unsubscribed.

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Boston

your post script is far more political in nature than environmental and might be better aplied to the economics page and how it effects live aboard yachties

Yes much better to consider these things in isolation, makes perfect sense!

[fasteddy106]

I'm just gonna watch this for a while here. Boston is really getting insulted that we won't drink his KoolAid, funny I watched a series of specials on NatGeo last night on cults, thought of Boston and his tactics immediately. When someone produces evidence of CO2 causeing warming rather that the other way around I'll start paying attention. Melting, dead Polar Bears, Glacial evaporation at 0 degrees f, coral bleaching, etc ad nauseum, are not evidence of CO2 causation. You have thrown up a lot a dust, shown us how smart you are, yet have utterly failed to prove your case. In science it is not the skeptics role to prove you wrong. You have an agenda, a radical one, that is not mainstream in any way shape or form. You will undoubtedly throw up more dust and ridicule, insult everyone around and try to bully everyone here in silence and submission. You will still be wrong, and you will still be angry, and have accomplished only to cause others to do research and study because of the disdain you show for others, thus further weakening your position, to the delight of people like myself who don't consider the fate of the universe to hang on my every word, as do you. Ego, the idea killer.

[Jimbo1490]

Boston

Once again you are proven full of ****.
You've NEVER answered the merits of the point I've brought up WRT gas concentration and light absorption, except to reference the Mikey Mann Virgin Stratosphere red herring or to discredit whoever raised the objection. Neither of these constitutes answering the question in a cogent, plausible scientific way.

Everyone here will remember that you have refused to answer this, insisting that you already have, when in fact you never did.

I pointed out months ago that the MMVS is a red herring with NO support in scientific literature and NO empirical support in observational data. I've pointed out that warmers universally admit to the reality of observed stratospheric cooling, which directly contradicts the predictions of the MMVS theory.

So we are back to the stable ground of Beer-Lambert, wherein CO2 has already given us all the heat it can.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

I

given the life span of 200 or so years of co2 in the atmosphere the answer is no

Hey Boston,

Show us the data that underpins this assertion about 200 year life span of atmospheric CO2. There have been 35 studies done on this subject and they average to 5.6 years. The 200 was again, pulled out of one of your AGW hero's butts in order to get scary scenarios out of GCM's. Segalstad proved how the AGW alarm charlatans got this wrong. Pesky fellow that Segalstad; maybe your AGW camp will contract a successful hit on him this next time, then there will be one less evil 'denier'

Cheers, Chump


Jimbo

[Boston]

I'm just gonna watch this for a while here. Boston is really getting insulted that we won't drink his KoolAid

once again you are clearly hallucinating
Im laughing my ass off at you guys
insulted hardly its far more amusing than anything
talk about a complete inability to comprehend the basic scientific process

how many times have I stated that science works by virtue of preponderance of evidence
consensus
how many times have I stated that there is always anomalous evidence with the highs and the lows getting tossed

the fossilized deniers focus on the anomalous data as if any theory had a flawless data stream
rather than even consider the mountains of data in agreement

its the majority of agreeing data which in this case is extraordinarily lopsided and that is what the consensus represents
97% is a whopping huge consensus

I strongly urge anyone reading this to start at the beginning and read the thread for yourself
Jims rejection of basic science in order to maintain his religious like disbelief is more than obvious

The constant assertions that nothing has been "proven" is a cheep tactic on the part of the oil and gas industry to forestall meaningful change
with it being explained over and over that proof is an absolute and science works on a preponderance of evidence.

these petty few have been consistently incapable of comprehending that reality

rather than be frustrated I actually got a real bang out of that jive about some kind of cult cause if anyone is cult like its the deniers camp
another classic deniers tactic to accuse the scientific community of the tactics they themselves work endlessly

you guys are hillarious
please feel free to continue

imagine if 150 years after the first circumnavigation there were still a few who insisted the earth is flat
that's what you guys are doing

Jim you are jumping up and down like a child in a tantrum
admit it
go look back through the thread if you need to and see for yourself that your question has been answered numerous times and each time you pretend the same tactic.
what your not pretending apparently is a complete lack of comprehension regarding how science works.

what the whole thread will remember is your religious like denial of anything that seeks to correct your lack of comprehension.

when ice is melting
its generally getting warmer mate
its pretty simple

why is it getting warmer if the record shows we should be in a cooling trend
a simple analysis of atmospheric chemistry
a huge rise in atmospheric co2 over the 600,000 year norm
the isotopic signature of that co2 matches that of fossil co2

with there being countless studies in agreement
and a rare few in disagreement

if you wish to cling to those rare few
after the scientific community has reviewed and rejected them as inconsequential is your problem

you guys are great

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

Notice in Boston's latest response there's not a single word about the substance of the assertions made about either Beer-Lambert or the life of atmospheric CO2. He has NEVER addressed either of these points with any data, because all of the available data cuts against his 'cause'.

Instead he wastes a lot of words calling everyone who disagrees, fossils, dinosaurs, agnotists, idiots or whatever word he is fond of lately.

All fluff, no substance, as usual.

Jimbo

[Boston]

Notice Jim has had numerous concepts concerning this exact issue explained to him over and over in this thread and although he failed to comprehend the psychics or science involved still insists that it somehow if its explained to him again
he will suddenly get it

start simple Jim
and lets see who is all fluff

what's the forcing relationship between h2o vapor and temp
if you can answer that one correctly we can move on
hint
its in the thread already and if you actually comprehend it
you will find the answer based on gas laws
something you were previously not able to grasp

throughout history ingorance leads to frustration leads to anger
you sound angry in that last Jim
if you worked on relieving your ignorance
you might not sound so angry

ps
both assertions have been thoroughly addressed earlier in this thread

think carefully before you ask me to go back and reprint our conversations regarding vapor forcing
if you remember it was quite embarrassing for you