What Do We Think About Climate Change

Its a liberal mindset, Gonzo, just like they want to control the economy they want to believe that we have the power to control the world climate. Fewer freedoms for people that work and think equals more power for them.

 

Mark you are so media damaged that there is no point even attempting.. It is a shame this post will appear right after yours, but so be it.
________________________________________________________________




Jimbo,

I really cannot see how you think that those graphs show that humans have no effect on the biosphere. Also please explain what carbon, after 5 to ten years turns into or where it goes.

______********


Ok now before getting back into confusing minutiae of details, lets look at a broader picture.

This same discussion is going on in parallel throughout the web, so much so that wikipedia has an entry on it which, as almost always, is pretty fair and balanced, call it a starting point into further investigation.

Here it is;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

**

Furthermore, i noticed that certain websites have had a preponderance in linking to's from proponents of the idea that mankind has nothing to do with climate change -- Please observe i use the word 'change' instead of 'warming' for reasons that i may not have the time to fit in this post.

[Now when i read material that puts forward the idea that we are not responsible for any climate change, i think that these people presumably think that we can just keep on growing and consuming indefinitely. Which is profoundly erroneous and will just make us go through the classic population changes one associates with most forms of non-conscious life. Maybe i'm wrong on this, i would like to know]

**

Before begining i would like to say to Jimbo and Guillermo that i have looked back about 250 posts and have looked at most of the links and in fact found much videos and sites that i had previously visited. So if you are truly in search of the truth, as i am, then you will no doubt read some of my links as well..

**

So just taking one of the sites that support the notion that "we are not the cause for global warming" and doing some searches on it revealed plenty.

Here is a blog which has a list of front groups that pretend to be independent but are actually funded by oil interests; http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/19/coal-and-oil-unite/
Look at #11 on the list.

Turns out the heartland institute use to deny the link between smoking and ill health. Needless to say money changed hands.

Here is a pdf outlining some of the technics used by the deniers of our current scientific understanding complete with snippets of internal memos;

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/bet... industry PR techniques report March 2009.pdf

And here is another with several mentions of heartland institute and others. Use the pdf search function to get to the relevant pages.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

**
Now, as an aside, i happen to be a smoker at this period in life. I admit i am hooked to nicotine, although there are cigarettes i do find quite satisfying. However that does not prevent me from seeing the obvious, that smoking is not healthy. Nor does it mean i would endorse a cigarette banning program.
**

There has also been numerous links to Roy Spencer and yes i looked at his videos and followed his logic to where he was trying to get at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

He works for the heartland institute and is a ..... Creationist! Need i say more?

**

Chaps, i am afraid this seems to come down to something else not whether or not humans affect climate but rather if you would rather believe .

Conspiracy theory A; The ruling elite use misplaced concern over the climate as a tool for consolidating power.

Conspiracy theory B; The big oil interests are disseminating misinformation to keep people happilly using their products.

*************______

So which one is it? Well it is a fact that a lot of money is spent on advertising by big oil. It is also a fact that the vast majority of scientists around the world are very conservative (not keen on going out on a limb and losing credibilty) and they are almost all of them agreed on this. Humans are affecting the climate. This i thought to be excruciatingly obvious a couple of decades ago, it is amazing it took them this long to reach an unequivocal consensus (and yes i know consensus is not nescessarily an indication of truth) .

****

The vast bulk of our scientific knowledge shows that humans have an influence over the climate. So does plankton. And cows. And oak trees , ants, fish, mold, etc, etc.

****

Seems pretty obvious.

****

Sorry you got duped by a very sophisticated, and expensive advertising campaign. I've been duped by advertising campaigns in the past too. (example you must drink x amounts of cow milk per day to be healthy) , i may be duped by others right now. If i am i would love it for better informed people to point it out to me so i can be free of yet more lies.

*****_________________________________-_

Finally for those who really do want to find out more about it and which conspiracy is more likely true please watch this fanatastic documentary;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730


Make a night of it. Think about it.

Be a real skeptic.

 

Now when we are talking about the really important aspects of being a human being, I happen to have few cajas de puros (Cohibas, Monte Christos etc) waiting me to slip from my ongoing denial of inhaled pleasure. Thou I have to admit I tend to sniff these flavours of Cuba occasionally

 

Dr Kusano, a research group leader with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science's Earth Simulator project, Dr Akasofu, director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007, and Tokyo Institute of Technology geology professor Shigenori Maruyama are highly critical of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's acceptance that hazardous global warming results mainly from man-made gas emissions.

On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis".

Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".

(Most probably all of them are fools and corrupts, paid by Exxon, Marlboro and the Heartland Institute! Oh! and I'd bet they are Creationists as well! )

More at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html

Cheers.

 

ttt, your falling into the trap of some other knuckleheads (Seabass, et.al.)- Posting all the **** you can Google without knowing what the hell you are even posting. The ONE thing warmers had going for them is that they thought that it would take 50 years to prove them wrong but even that is a fallacy - even if there weren't empirical evidence that the world is now, indeed, cooling, (which it appears to be) their non-science has repeatably been shown to be silly.
Do you realize that my taxes keep you alive? Don't talk back. Why don't you join the Florida dude and sail away to utopia (Chile).

 

Your taxes keep me alive? That indicates precisely how you have no idea who i am , how i live, why i'm here, what my plans are, and more than anything how HUGE your ego is.

Let me let you on to a little uncomfortable fact; Your income taxes go to pay the interest owed on the debt accrued by your government to the Federal bank.
Nothing more. Simple, you pay the bank. That's it. How's that for oppression?

If you want to usefully direct your hate, direct it at them, not me.

 

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
By Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner eek: two more fools and corrupts! now from Germany!)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

From there:

"A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods,
flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical
statistics.
In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science."

And also this jewel:
"A consensus, exactly speaking a consensus about a hypothesis is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth of a physical law."

Cheers.

 

Por lo menos,.. you're speaking English.

 

Geeze, Guillermo, why do you keep posting this crap? Have you ever had a statistics course? Do you have any idea at all what you are talking about? The last time I looked (and I've actually had three semesters of graduate level statistics) the subject was based upon ---- MATHEMATICS! Not models, not anything at all but mathematics. Difficult, pain in the *** mathematics to be sure, but still just math. Go find a stat book and I think you will see . . . no, I don't suppose you will. I give up.

 

Oh my god (gosh). This is beautiful and entertaining from my perspective, and is all good. For some reason I could smell a set up on the 2 (two) question thing about the carbon. I presume you may have been looking for onions on the subject Tcubed, because that’s what you will get. There are farmers that are very good at what they do. There are fishermen that stand out amongst the rest. Carpenters, doctors and scientists (I’m omitting lawyers, . I think most agree? With said, in your own specific profession we (me) have marveled at the ones who stand out. So let’s play with the global climate? I love the graphs and the data, but in my reality I ask who’s spewing the data? …Probably more reliable then a fellow at a bus stop? Hey wait!, that fellow/gal may be pretty sharp? Some data may be the result of many non-scientific situations, such as cost of the project, greed, self need for some reasons. Ever attempt to help people with their PHD paper? Funny sometimes. (..can explain further but trust me.)

This is what’s Kewl. Personally I tend to look at the whole picture, everyone’s (expert) opinion on the subject. Then decide 4 yourself. If it’s going to affect you and da family, then by gosh speak out. We wana live, us humans. That is, we want our DNA to live perhaps. Convincing someone, anyone, you’re an expert is easy but it's really your opnion. But, there always that someone who stands out in their profession. Be careful with Google, a lot of opinions there also. Sure, I could regurgitate and research if you want but more worried about paying da mortgage @ this pont.

Anyway, the BiG picture is humans do contribute to global warming. I’m assuming also Tcubed that’s why you asked the “no humans on earth thing “ #2. Just my opinion (FOR NOW). Not trying to convince anyone and not dodging any challenging Q’s either. Just seems not worth it unless I was President. Know what I mean.

Any true scientist is open for just about anything. No, anything. A little history helped with that decision.

 

cumulative emissions

according the that graph more than half the co2 presently measured in the atmosphere is the cumulative result of emissions attributed to man

the little purple line is the annual or yearly emissions attributed to man

its pretty mind bending clear that your own graph proves you wrong on the issue of not only the life span of co2 in the atmosphere but also its cumulative effect

also noting the second of your graphic attempts to prove your point



although this graph is a little harder to understand what is clear is that the area shaded to represent co2 from fossil fuels is in reasonably close agreement with the previous graph with slightly less than half being due to cumulative anthropogenic co2

this later graph also seems to show that anthropogenic co2 has a steady life span of clearly several hundred years
with naturally occurring co2 having a half life of about twenty to thirty or so years

what I cant read on this graph is what is meant by the "natural pre 1750" portion of the graph

if you have the rest of Keelings paper Ild love to read it
B

what is clear is that the two graphs you chose to prove your point actually blow the doors off any attempts to deny that anthropogenic co2 is anything less than both prevalent and pervasive in the atmosphere
I would not have guessed it made up so much of the atmospheric co2 but those are your graphs and there it is for all to see
dam
we are screwed arent we
thing is apparently
photosynthesizing plants discriminate against anthropogenic co2 such that it remains in the atmosphere for longer periods of time
what a f^)&%^g nightmare
we are so screwed

cheers
B

 

Alex , my question was all life , not just humans.

Although that would be a good question too , but it would not arrive so directly at the conclusion that is essentially inescapable..

 

Jimbo, earlier you said <<<Incidental CO2, be it from anthropogenic sources or volcanism or forest fires or whatever, is ALWAYS swamped out by natural sources linked to ongoing biological processes. Look at the graphs I posted!

Jimbo>>>

Now presumably that means you agree that biological life impacts the atmosphere. Maybe you might also agree that without it the atmosphere would become unfit for humans.?

The rest of your stance , as far as i gather, would therefore imply that humans are exempt from the definition of biological life............


?

 

Jimbo , before you reveal more of your lack of understanding of the carbon cycle have a look at the table below. See what kind of conclusions you might gather from it just by using logic.

 

You, clever man , go tell that to the authors, not me. Here you have their contact data:

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut für Mathematische Physik
Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de

Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov


Cheers.