What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yep, that's it. You've unmasked me, Hoyte. What I really want to do is kill everyone on the planet. I'm just covering my tracks by pretending I want to keep the planet a good place to live, instead....

 

Yep, and as an evil conservative I want every tree in Brasil turned into a desk or a yardstick. I want the skies orange at noon and the air so thick I don't have to breathe it; I can just eat it with a spoon. I want the rivers to be flammable and ALL the grain to be held in silos or burnt so that poor people won't get to eat. The manatees should all be dead and in the fridge for the weekend barby. Can I have a little dolphin with my tuna? YUM.

 

Well dohhh...you didn't have to tell us. We already knew all that....

 

< Moderator Note: A couple posts have been removed. As said above:

The propaganda point was fair; the fact that people can go along with something that is wrong is fair. But to go on further takes this off topic and simply inflames emotion taking away from objective discussion. >

 

Troy,

This is a bit like a creationist criticizing a realist for his 'obsession' with the age of the earth The earth's age is a very fundamental, foundational principle of the creationist position. They claim the earth is less than 10,000 (I think they say 6000 to be exact) years old. Now reasonable scientists can argue about how old they believe the earth really is, but they are in UNANIMOUS agreement that is is WAY older than 6,000 or 10,000 years. But with an 'ancient' rather than 'young' earth, the whole creationist narrative falls completely apart. Instead of addressing this, the creationists want to jump ahead to arguments about how mutations are never beneficial, or the 'chicken and egg' nature of DNA vs protein synthesis, the missing intermediary fossil forms, and etc., etc.

The young earth is a basic assumption of the creationist narrative.

The creationsist begins each discussion in his own mind with the understanding that the earth is young, with no more evidence of this idea than word penned to paper by what he considers to be wise men. And these were not ordinary wise men, but an inscrutable priesthood of the exceptionally wise, the founders of a faith.

NOT ONE BIT of scientific data in the form of isotopic geochemistry need be called upon in support of the creationsist's belief in the young earth; the words of his chosen wise men are all that's needed.

The fact that centuries later such geochemistry has completely destroyed the validity of the belief in the 'young earth' furthermore means nothing to him. It is a matter of faith.

The situation with the residence time for atmospheric CO2 is amazingly similar, even while the order of events is different. The same branch of the sciences, isotopic geochemistry, has CONCLUSIVELY established that the residence time of CO2 is SHORT, somewhere around 5 years. Then along comes a new crop of 'wise men' with a new message for our age, that our excessive comfort and consumption is ruining the planet and must be curbed, no matter the cost. This message resonates with many, in a similar way that the bible's message of early favor with god followed by a fall from grace and final redemption resonated with past generations.

Contained in that new message is the basic assumption that CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere from burning stuff on land. This can only be possible if the residence time of CO2 is long, not short. So knowing enough of the sciences, these new wise men 'invent' a long residence time without calling upon ONE BIT of scientific data in the form of isotopic geochemical analysis for support, and instead of putting pen to paper, they use the keyboards of computers and their tomes are called 'models'.

That CO2 can accumulate from burning stuff is a basic assumption of the AGW narrative.

The believers in this new 'mea culpa' philosophy begin each discussion with the assumption that CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of burning stuff, with no more evidence for this idea than the keystrokes on a keyboard of one of their 'wise men'. This has become a foundational principle of this new 'religion' and without it, the whole thing falls apart just a surely as the creationist narrative is just a fairy tale if the earth really is several billion years old.

It's not surprising that people once believed in the biblical creation story. It's actually a great leap forward compared to earlier attempts at explaining the origin of the universe, and it paved the way for modern scientific thought. And after all, it would be another 3,500 years before the advent of isotopic geochemistry

What is surprising is that we now seem to be regressing back to fantasy narratives that can't be supported with honest scientific inquiry, promoted by an inscrutable priesthood that leads cadres of 'true believers'.

Jimbo

 

I got a laugh out of that. But I also think it's an example of how opponents of AGW have managed to insert politics into what should have been a scientific debate. A large number of folks don't have a clue about global warming or climate change--but are fanatically against it anyway, just because a liberal Democrat has spoken up about it.

It reminds me of a comment I read about Obama last year. Someone said there are plenty of people out there who would hate the toothpaste Obama uses, if they could find out what brand it is.

 

Notice what's missing from this (or any) of your posts on isotopic mass-balance studies: absolute numbers. Now why is that? Could it be that NONE of the published mass-balance studies show the 'expected' fraction of 'fossil' vs recent carbon, indicating that only a tiny fraction of the present atmosphere's CO2 is sourced from fossil fuels, which refute your assertion?

We all know the numbers by now, because I've repeated them on the thread so many times, but in case you've forgotten, or there are new readers here, I'll post them again.

-7.0 0/00 PDB The isotopic signature of the carbon in the pre-industrial atmosphere

-26 0/00 PDB The isotopic signature of 100% fossil carbon

-7.8 0/00 PDB The isotopic signature of the present atmosphere (Corresponds to <5% fossil carbon)

-11.0 0/00 PDB The expected isotopic signature of the atmosphere if 21% of the carbon therein were from fossil sources.

When you can find us a mass-balance study which show this fractionation, get back to us. I think you'll find it laying right next to the residence time study you were tasked to find.

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, get a grip. My posts were strictly about the temperatures. I didn't say a word about the causes.

Common sense should tell even you that it's a little strange to accuse me of being stupidly and completely wrong about accumulations or residence times--when I hadn't even mentioned them.

You're getting very close to joining that select group of people with whom I no longer argue. You're attacking me for things I never said and things I don't believe; you're telling me repeatedly how universally beloved a tyrant and his thugs were; you're using my posts as just an excuse to spout your prepackaged rants, instead of responding to what I actually say.

 

Daniel, your post is a perfect example of why the andropogenic warming theory has so much success with the average punter.

You have thrown in the mix, the trees, the penguins, overpopulation, redistribution of resources and the greens who so lovingly try to fix all of this imbalance.

I am sorry to tell you that the above has nothing to do with what the Andropogenic Global Warming movement is trying to achieve. In fact I would say that all of the claims the greens had a long time ago, including the few genuine and valuable among them, all will be thrown on the scrap heap together with the AGW theory once the masses start to wake up from their induced coma.

In other words, the deforestation in the Amazon and Malaysia and PNG will continue because eventually the AGW will get finally and permanently exposed for the fraud it is and hopefully people will start getting charged and sent to gaol and the true genuine fights the green forgot to fight distracted with this colossal fraud, will lose.

As for using Hitler as an illustration of a universally accepted tyrant, I do not apologise since it is a perfectly valid if a bit overused illustration. I can start using Stalin if more palatable, however the idea is that the illustration is NOT supposed to be palatable. The point is that the wilderness society/greens/Greenpeace and assorted ****** are in fact a worst threat than Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussain, Napoleon or Genghis Khan ever were because of the speed and the universality and the depth of the claim to arms for the de-industrialisation and de-humanisation.

And if you think I am being a conspiracy theorist, so be it. Unlike Boston I am not here to win a popularity contest, I am here to say it as I see it.

If the climate is changing yet not because of human intervention, why are we even talking about it? Hey, tomorrow it will rain yet the next week it will not. So?

If humans are changing the climate the variations, THE REAL ONE not the made up one, are so minuscule that thy are not worth talking about. It is going to be 0.12 centigrade hotter tomorrow at 1300 hours. Do you care? I don't and I am sure you do not either.

And last but not least: If in deed all the realist are wrong and dear old Boston is oh so right, and the temperature will rise a couple of degrees in 50 years. WHO CARES? Who is to say that this is "BAD" and that cooler is "GOOD"? Who decides? Al Gore? I thought he lost the election!

However he probably found a much better way to make money. Defrauding the world at large.
Hi.....oops I mean Stalin would salivate at the thought of rising up a world army of lunatics and assorted misinformed and naive dreamers (present company excepted of course) who would embrace a cause with little scrutiny because there is collateral talk of polar bears and pinguins getting rained upon.

 

I want to believe. Help me to believe!!!!!

Boston, my dearest friend in the ether and beyond....

Can you post for me, not Guillermo or the others just for me please....a small, short, brief clear explanation from someone literate in science that says in no uncertain terms WHY the claim that CO2 has 200 years residence in the athmosphere.
Considering it is a key element for the AGW claim, this should be at hand.

Thanking you in advance

Marc

 

Wow, you boys have been busy. Some thoughts on the "follow the money" trail on the path of worldwide economic ruin we call Anthropogenic Global Warming...............

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

Oh, and the so called consensus. It is based on the responses of 3,100 out of 10,000 scientists surveyed. Of the 3,100 responses, 82% thought Global Warming was anthropogenic. So if I use the logic of Troy and Boston,and the rest of the AGW Koolaid Club, 74.58% of scientists surveyed do not agree with the AGW hypothesis. Of course that would be fiddling with statistics and misrepresenting what really occurred. But I did mention that I was using the logic of the AGW College of Cardinals.

 

You aren't using my logic. It's absurd to argue that the scientific consensus on AGW is just a conclusion drawn from a single survey.

 

Which is about as important to me as a .05C increase in temperature over 50 years.

Jimbo

 

Be carefull Marco, you are close to go against what you told me.
You get too personal
I don't like Hitler for personal reason as I said in my post, so just for me try to avoid mentioning his name.
As the other stuff you said as the same value as mine. It is just your opinion against mine.
Nothing quite new here. We are human exchanging opinions, and I still love my Polar Bear, my forest untouched, my redistribution of the resources and as for Al Gore I don't give a fly rat about him. He is a bloated self conscious self absorbed with fake hairs salesman who make more money than me
Anyway, I get your point. Even if I don't show it I get the point of all the opinion here, and it is quite interesting.
The graphics do not impress me, everybody can show graphics, Al Gore did a lot. He absolutely love graphics.
It seams we are all here very amateur in this topics, and I hope it stay that way, because the professionals put us in a pickle of lies and deceptions.
Daniel