What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

I think additional taxes for any reason is a waist of money
basically those rat bastards are getting enough of our money already
to much actually

yes we have a global warming problem and
no I wouldn't trust these idiots in politics to fix a flat tire let alone anything even remotely as difficult as global warming
half of those fools don't even understand what it is let alone how to address the issue

taxes are not the answer
it will only get foisted off on the consumer and industry and gov will just keep right on doing what they have always done

taxes wont make a **** bit of difference

its just one more way to take a real problem and present some scheme designed to personally advance a few people at the expense of the many

typical US gov responce to a problem
kinda like the bank bail outs

funny thing is Ive said this countless times

cheers
B

[Marco1]

It is not only the US, we are following suit unless this year people wake up and vote conservative.

Just look at Europe and what they have done of their ETS or carbon trading.

I wonder what will be next after the GW ballon is deflated...we had the avian and the swine...may be some eXtraterrestrial bug? That would be a new one.
It just takes an asteroid landing and spreading of a few lab born viruses dressed up in green suits....

[Boston]

both parties are a crock

both take bribes from the oil and gas industry and everyone else thats offering one and both are just as responsible for failing the people and running the country into the dirt

I say hang the bastards one and all and let God sort em out

we need a whole new gov in this country and not much positive is likely to happen any time soon until we get brave and throw these bums out democrat or republican, conservative ( as if they are actually conservative ) or liberal ( fat chance of any honesty there eh )

[fasteddy106]

There is simply no justification for suggesting that there is anything less than a multi million dollar disinformation campaign being staged by industry against the science of global warming


In response to the above quote by Boston, I will again ask that he post the check numbers and amounts of the bribes and persons taking them. These are public corporations and their books are open. Boston is so good at posting irrelevent minutae and other nonsense, this research should be easy for him. Saying everybody knows just doesn't cut it. What we know is that everybody says that, without backing it up.

Hang them all doesn't quite work in a democracy. Nor is it anywhere near a logical response. Quite irresponsible as a matter of fact. Except for an egotist like Boston. Let God sort them out???? Now that's a beauty coming from him.

What is really funny about Boston is that he continues to confuse climate change with causation. No one is saying that the climate insn't changing. We are debunking the alarmism being used. We are debating the phoney numbers and data distortion. We are questioning the methods used to come up with some of the data. We question the motives behind the deception, and lies. If a science is so certain and the results so perfectly ordained, why the need for the snake oil salesman tactics. We just can't accept that someone using all the unethical and dishonest methods that the AGW movement has used is really doing that out of a concern for our best interests. He just can't deal with fact that an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW or his wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

There is simply no justification for suggesting that there is anything less than a multi million dollar disinformation campaign being staged by industry against the science of global warming


In response to the above quote by Boston, I will again ask that he post the check numbers and amounts of the bribes and persons taking them. These are public corporations and their books are open. Boston is so good at posting irrelevent minutae and other nonsense, this research should be easy for him. Saying everybody knows just doesn't cut it. What we know is that everybody says that, without backing it up.

Hang them all doesn't quite work in a democracy. Nor is it anywhere near a logical response. Quite irresponsible as a matter of fact. Except for an egotist like Boston. Let God sort them out???? Now that's a beauty coming from him.

What is really funny about Boston is that he continues to confuse climate change with causation. No one is saying that the climate insn't changing. We are debunking the alarmism being used. We are debating the phoney numbers and data distortion. We are questioning the methods used to come up with some of the data. We question the motives behind the deception, and lies. If a science is so certain and the results so perfectly ordained, why the need for the snake oil salesman tactics. We just can't accept that someone using all the unethical and dishonest methods that the AGW movement has used is really doing that out of a concern for our best interests. He just can't deal with fact that an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW or his wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull.

Little disingenuous there, son. Obviously, bribes aren't going to show up on the company books. However, the money the companies have given to dishonest lobbying efforts such as the Oregon Project is documented in excruciating detail and the numbers are readily available and widely published...as you know very well. Why do you demand that Boston produce them all over again?

Your own argument on methods can be turned against you: if opposition to climate change theory is so scientifically clear and valid, why the need for all the dishonest lobbying and bogus science to back it up?

You're still making demonstrably false claims in this thread: it simply isn't true that "an overwhelming majority of folks just don't buy into AGW." You're pulling that claim out of your fundament, with no proof at all to back it up.

It is true that fewer people believe it now than a year or two ago; congratulations to those who are working hard on their disinformation campaigns. That's an interesting approach to scientific theory: misinform the public, pound away with scare tactics, then claim the public opinion thus manufactured and manipulated should be the final arbiter of scientific truth.

By the way, it's cheap theatrics and dishonest debate to attack Boston's 'ego,' or lump Boston's beliefs on climate change in with some imagined "wackjob philosophy of zero growth, anarchism, and whatever other buckshot philosophies are bouncing off the inside of his skull." That sort of tactics would get you an F in any debate class in the country. Apparently he's too mannerly or civilized to bluntly call you on it. I'm not, though...

[hoytedow]

Yep, the Modern Whig Party looks better to me every day.

[TollyWally]

I look at the evidence and I just don't buy it. Plenty of room for controversy that's for sure. I'll ask the believers in global warming a couple of questions that if answered in a convincining way would give them a lot more credibility in my mind.

What was responsible for the observed climate fluctuations over the last few thousand years?

If we are now headed towards a mancaused climate change what is the climate we should aspire to?

[hoytedow]

Warmer is better in my mind because more people are killed by cold than warm. Cold stunts plant growth and therefore lessens food supply. Cold interferes with grape production which lessens wine supply, further diverting other grains to alcohol production further lessening food supply. Cold freezes over vast areas of seawater lessening whale supply, and who doesn't love whales?

[Guillermo]

Let's talk about Troy's "disinformation".

We have already seen glaciers retreat has nothing to do with human activities, but with the warming of the planet out from the LIA. If something is happening these last decades is that the tendency is rather slowing than accelerating. See my recent post 4541


Now another hint (There are many, many more in this thread, but you have decided to remain blind to what doesn't match your beliefs): IPCC 2007 report's summary for policymakers http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

Phenomenon and direction of trend: Intense tropical cyclone activity increases

Likelihood of a human contribution to bserved trend: More likely than not

"There is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions...."


Now let's see who is "disinforming":

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) attributes increased recent hurricane activity to “natural occurring cycles in tropical climate patterns near the equator. These cycles, called “the tropical multi-decadal signal,” typically last several decades (20 to 30 years or even longer). As a result, the North Atlantic experiences alternating decades long (20 to 30 year periods or even longer) of above normal or below normal hurricane seasons. NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming.” [http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm]


Recent research reported in 2007 by the Woods Hole Oceanic Institute “Scientists Unearth Long Record of Past Hurricanes” [http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArti...ectionid=1021] analyzing soil deposits representing the last 5,000 years in Puerto Rico found: “extensive periods of intense hurricanes in the past, when ocean temperatures were cooler than they are now. The record showed that the dominant forces spawning heightened hurricane activity appeared to be atmospheric conditions generated by weak El Niños in the tropical Pacific and strong West African monsoons”

In their 2008 hurricane summary (“Summary of 2008 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity and Verification of Author’s Seasonal and Monthly Forecasts”, Philip J. Klotzbach and William M. Gray, Department of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University, Nov. 2008) the authors state: “Despite the global warming of the sea surface that has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic. This large increase in Atlantic major hurricanes is primarily a result of the multi-decadal increase in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global sea surface temperatures or CO2 gas increases. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).” [http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/...8/nov2008.pdf]

The attached figure is from that paper and shows tracks of major (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes during the 25-year cooling period of 1945-1969 versus the 25-year warming period of 1970-1994. They state: “CO2 amounts in the later period were approximately 18 percent higher than in the earlier period. Major Atlantic hurricane activity was less than 1/2 as frequent during the latter period despite warmer global temperatures.”


I'll keep on posting about "disinformation". This is most funny and entertaining.

Cheers.

[Boston]

thanks for the thought Troy but YO YO is definitely on the ignore list
so no worries
I think we have all learned to see straight through that tripe anyway

on the Guillermo front we have melting glassier's and grasping at straws

sure has

Ill have to do better than just skim that article but in the end he is in full agreement with the increased melt as being indicative of increased warming.

which I believe we might have already addressed in some detail



higher temperatures = less ice

storm dynamics is an interesting study but not a clearly indicative of warming as melting ice

[TollyWally]

So Boston,
Not trying to stir the pot but how about a little input against common sense scepticism?

[Guillermo]

But Boston my darling, no one disagrees with that. You keep on not listening to what others say.
Let's talk more slowly and loud for you to understand:

WE-ARE-NOT-DE-BA-TING-HERE-WAR-MING-BUT-ITS-CAU-SES-AND-EF-FECTS.

Capicci?


And also:

PLEASE-GO-ALL-THE-WAY-BACK-TO-YE-AR-SE-VEN-TEEN-HUN-DRED-NOT-JUST-TO-NINE-TEEN-SIX-TY-OR E-VEN-NINE-TEEN-HUN-DRED

Capicci?

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

both parties are a crock

both take bribes from the oil and gas industry and everyone else thats offering one and both are just as responsible for failing the people and running the country into the dirt

I say hang the bastards one and all and let God sort em out...

Amazing! This is totally atonishing, coming from you! Are you beginning to see the light?

[Boston]

Originally Posted by TollyWally

So Boston,
Not trying to stir the pot but how about a little input against common sense scepticism?

no worries
ummmm
common sense says that if we alter the chemistry of the atmosphere were are likely to see some changes in how that atmosphere works
seems logical

we have dumped untold tons of Co2 into that air
kinda makes sense that that might have some kind of detrimental effect doesn't it

G
that was dam funny
I threw you a bone on that one

so we agree that things are warming
and we agree that co2 is increasing
can we agree on that co2 having the isotopic signature of fosil fuels
or do you have some other source that just happens to exactly mirror waist caused by the industrial revolution

we have been over this of course but not sure you ever reached that admission

cheers
B

once we all realize its warming
and all realize we have dramatically rising levels of co2
then maybe we can just put those two together and see the cause and effect
seems reasonable

then maybe we can check out some of the more intricate aspects of those effects

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Post the check numbers Troy, prove your statement. Plus you are ignoring the fact that the energy industries are in a win win position, they can't lose. If the AGW KoolAid Club creates a phoney shortage of oil they simply make more money on less sales.

Exxon/Mobil has spent 23 million on research, not lobbyists, bit of a difference there. Besides, why shouldn't they be allowed to defend themselves against the class warfare being waged on them? Btw, no one is saying the that the climate is not changing. Of course it is, it always has and always will. That's another ruse used by the dogmatics of AGW. We are not arguing against reality, we are arguing against the junk science being used to promote a political agenda. Do some reading beyond the headlines Troy, this link is a good start.......

http://joannenova.com.au/

No, I'm not going to "post the check numbers." The money spent in the US, with its disclosure laws, is well-documented, and you're quite aware of it--as you prove when you start throwing the same numbers around yourself.

And you really need to break yourself of posting deliberate falsehoods as a debating tactic. The $23 million you refer to was spent on lobbying and disinformation, not 'research'--and you know it. Apparently you have no shame; you'll say anything you think might help your argument, whether it's true or not.

Congratulations; you just became the only person on the forum to make my ignore list; I don't need the aggravation. While people like Guillermo are making honest efforts to advance their viewpoint and back it up with appropriate references, you sit here name-calling and making !@#$ up.