What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

looks like my last got nixed

oh well seemed like a good comparison to me

must be a conspiracy eh

whats funny is you guys seem to think its all some evil plot to undermine the land of the free and the home of the brave ( yuk yuk yuk )

thing is there is no secret plot spanning hundreds of years and tens of thousands of scientists or bending the laws of physics since there inception to all conspire against you few people who feel you will somehow be harmed by efforts to not screw up the atmospheric chemistry

its a ridiculous position and its got not one shred of merit

yes the politicians will bilk you out of every dime they can for whatever excuse they can

doesn't mater what your talking about or for what reason some shyster politician will guaranteed find a way to screw you senseless

simply because climate change is a valid problem does not make it immune from those rat bastards

and simply because some fool politician is going to take advantage of say school lunches does not make the school lunch program a bad idea it just means some jackass is a crook.

[fasteddy106]

This should be fun to watch. The key phrase in the article explains how the authors of the IPCC will have to rely on their friends to review their work. Considering all the fraud and junk science attributed to the authors and reviewer of AR1 - AR4 I don't hold out a lot of hope for an objective review. If their work is so above reproach and beyond question perhaps they should appoint a group of skeptics to do the review, then there would be no way to argue about the results if the skeptics are convinced. I won't hold my breath.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35625667...s-environment/

[fasteddy106]

Now this if funny..............

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the...trick-falters/

[Boston]

The paranoa level reminds me of the same kinds of folks who believe in ZOG and all that racist trash that gets spread around

same disinformation
same there out to get me attitude
same psychotic ramblings ignoring the facts
same insistence that there is some mythical secret plot that nobody knows about except them
its simple paranoid dilutions without merit and without justification

97% of scientists never agreed on anything before global warming came along. Its a larger consensus than for evolution or gravity.

Not to hard to imagine that there must be a reason so many of the folks who study this full time are saying there is no debate
which in fact there isn't ( feel free to point to any accredited university hosting a climate change deniers debate ) and for a reason.
The only question remaining is the extent of the damage and the speed of its progress.

[spearaddict]

But one of the troubles is that the IPCC is written by most of the world's top experts in climate science. And the experts who don't write it, often review it, so it's hard to find someone both independent and knowledgeable.

I think that proves that there is consensus among climate scientists.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by spearaddict

I think that proves that there is consensus among climate scientists.

It only proves that they have hijacked the review process.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

This should be fun to watch. The key phrase in the article explains how the authors of the IPCC will have to rely on their friends to review their work. Considering all the fraud and junk science attributed to the authors and reviewer of AR1 - AR4 I don't hold out a lot of hope for an objective review. If their work is so above reproach and beyond question perhaps they should appoint a group of skeptics to do the review, then there would be no way to argue about the results if the skeptics are convinced. I won't hold my breath.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35625667...s-environment/

The skeptics don't understand the science behind it. All they understand is that acknowledging AGW exists means that they are admitting they are wrong. The only way they would accept AGW is if god came down and told it to them himself.

[Boston]

I have to wonder if most deniers have trouble with AGW because they simply dont have the background in the sciences to understand the concept

often ignorance breads malcontent

the tactic of the oil and gas giants seems to be a perfect example of agnotology and as such attempts to confuse rather than educate the targets of its PR campaign

so some people who are obviously getting most of there information from the same industry that stands to profit from confusion are completely baffled as to the simple science surrounding this non issue

I notice that the denialist voice is so week that the only place they can get any press at all is through industry rags and co sponsorships of various web pages.

the simple fact is there is no coherent or compelling counter theory to Abrupt Climate Change

instead we get inundated with a whole lot of unsubstantiated conspiracist ramblings about how "someone" is out to get us. Of course we never learn who these mystery people are and we never get any specifics.
how about if you guys actually stick to the science of climate change or is your argument so week it's not able to tolerate actual debate

[hoytedow]

This is NOT abrupt climate change. Mt. St. Helens was abrupt climate change. Yellowstone will be abrupt climate change but what we are experiencing is NORMAL climate change.

[spearaddict]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

This is NOT abrupt climate change. Mt. St. Helens was abrupt climate change. Yellowstone will be abrupt climate change but what we are experiencing is NORMAL climate change.

Well can you back up your claim with data? If not, your statement is just that, a statement.

[hoytedow]

bla bla bla

[hoytedow]

Can you back up YOUR claim with data, or just more doubtful tripe?

[denboatmad]

C'mon guys, you don't really believe the climate gestapo do you? What reliable scientific evidence? Computer model of the earths temperature history? Absolute rubbish. Sorry, but no thankyou to the theory!
Still, Al Gore must be rubbing his hands in anticipation......$ billions profit when the company, in which he is a partner, cashes in as the sheep allow the nutters to take over the USA's energy future next year.
Cynic , yep that's me. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.
Anyway back to looking up some info for my restoration project...... I'll get my coat.

[Boston]

of course the scientific claims can be backed up with data
thats why they are the claims of the scientific community
specifically because they are found within the data

lets go over some of the data right here and now


so you can point out the volcanic eruptions in the data pool somewhere
or is it that volcanic eruptions just dont make that much of a difference

you may find the Global Volcanism Program data to be helpful

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

and you may want to be able to point out exactly where in the co2 record those volcanic events can be seen



you might also want to be able to pinpoint were those nasty volcano's had any lasting effects on temp



not looking to promising is it



your also going to have to show that the recent unprecedented increase in co2 has a corresponding increase in volcanic activity if you want to try and prove the myth that volcano's did it

today on Myth Busters

The claim is that volcanic action around the world in one day spews forth more greenhouse gases than all of man's activities in one year. The claim is completely false. In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year (1 petragram=1000 tergrams) (See Figure 3, right). So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do. In fact, human activity exceed that of volcanic activity early in the Industrial Revolution (by 1870).

This is a pervasive myth that continues to circulate. The idea that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind through human industrial output is patently false. The facts are clear and measurable. Humans put out on average around 27Gt (Twenty Seven Gigatons) of CO2 per year. Volcanoes put out around .2 Gt (200 million tons of CO2).

the simple reality is that this claim that volcano's did it is "patently" false

Home Projects & Resources Environment Global Warming Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming Volcanoes Emit more CO2 than Mankind
Volcanoes Emit more CO2 than Mankind

This is a pervasive myth that continues to circulate. The idea that volcanoes put out more CO2 than mankind through human industrial output is patently false. The facts are clear and measurable. Humans put out on average around 27Gt (Twenty Seven Gigatons) of CO2 per year. Volcanoes put out around .2 Gt (200 million tons of CO2).
Volcanoes Emit more CO2 than Mankind

Strombolian Eruption
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.].

Source: US Geological Survey
Links

* http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

[hoytedow]

Those look like Owlgore's polygraph test.