What Do We Think About Climate Change

Funny how you key in on the one page article as not probative while ignoring the more than the 54 relevant temperature reconstructions cited in that one-page article which are probative. I'm going to call shenanigans here; no one can possibly be that obtuse!


Jimbo

 

Some citizens believe. http://www.france24.com/en/20100407-nkorea-leader-sets-world-fashion-trend-pyongyang

Others think critically.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ting-season-posts-latest-start-on-record.html

 

Oh, my God! I thought you were not reading my posts anymore!

 

I wanted to address this earlier, but got way busy with work, so here goes:

I posted this link:

NASA satellite to sleuth out 'missing' CO2

Then WONDER B stated:

What the goofball either does not know or is simply misleading the readers about here is that this 'missing' carbon is the result of the flawed models used, so has certainly NOT "been incorporated into the models", but instead is an indicator of the magnitude of the flaws in same, being that these models predict a current atmosphere with 800ppm CO2 when we have yet to reach 400ppm.

Jimbo

 

Guillermo
are you causing trouble again
dont make me come in and have to correct all your misconceptions again
Im kinda bussy these days but I will if I have to

lets try and keep the oil and gas industry spin to a minimum ok

Jim
always a well conceived and presented argument
was it something I said ?

love
B

ps
its a good thing I dont go wining to the moderator like some people we
know eh

 

It's raining right now.
Daniel

 

Sometimes it rains on the just.
Sometimes it rains on the unjust.
Sometimes it just rains.

 

You've completely missed the point, Jimbo (gee--how surprising). I'm not sulking because Guillermo has proven me 'wrong.' He'd have gotten the same answer from me no matter what he asked, because I got tired of him being a ******* about a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question I asked him.

As far as the AAPG goes, I never claimed they gave any 'ringing endorsements.' And I agree they're weaseling around in their statement. It must have been hard on their pride to change their stance, after sneering at the rest of the world for so long.

But if you go farther down into it, this is what they say. And strangely enough, what they say is that we should be doing everything that needs to be done if AGW is real. Compared to prior stances (in their Climate Card a few years ago, for example), that's quite a reversal.

# AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).
# AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
# AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery.
# AAPG supports measures to conserve energy, which has the affect of both reducing emissions and preserving energy supplies for the future.

edit: saying they're 'on board' might have been putting it a little strongly. But when they stop claiming AGW doesn't exist, they might as well be on board. They may not be rowing with the rest of the crew, but they're no longer trying to cut the tiller lines....and they were the last holdout. To quote the dreaded Wiki, "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.

And note that third item. It bears repeating: AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment.... If our CO2 emissions are having no effect on the environment as you seem to believe, Jimbo, why would even a pack of petroleum geologists be agreeing that we need to get them under control?

 

I like the caveat "economically viable" in their line stating that they 'support' 'technologies to sequester carbon dioxide emissions'. Of course NONE of these proposed schemes is even REMOTELY economically viable, so that gets them out of supporting ANY of them in the end. Very clever. I love it.


Screw Wikipedia right in their tight ***! They won't even let people correct lies posted about themselves in their own Wikipedia bio pages if that correction in any way conflicts (as it so often does) with their precious AGW orthodoxy. Anyone else can correct their own bio page, but this same courtesy is denied the 'deniers'. Screw Wikipedia!

Jimbo

 

You might want to stop admiring AAPG for their dishonest weasel ways, at least long enough to consider why they need to weasel. If they could still credibly maintain that man-made CO2 emissions have no environmental effect, they'd be doing so--instead of adding a bunch of qualifiers onto what we should be doing about them.

 

you might check these things out Jim
I do not like the idea of funding them with tax money though
frankly and you might actually like this
I think they aught to fund them with oil and gas money
after all it is there waste and those jack asses are making BILLIONS off of it


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.discovery.com/tech/2009/04/16/artificial-tree-278x225.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.discovery.com/tech/artificial-trees-cool-climate.html&usg=__Cw9VN0H6l5TBO7Uus6ecgBVGDyA=&h=225&w=278&sz=10&hl=en&start=8&sig2=jNlpYPFwlBqjYZB3Us9eCA&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=8BvhzN7lSeeH1M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dco2%2Bscrubbing%2Bsynthetic%2Btrees%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=OE69S6W6BJnoswOrkOT1Aw

 

When I first started reading that, my reaction was, "huhh? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to plant real trees?" I'm glad I kept reading anyway.

I'm a little skeptical they would ever pull enough CO2 to make a direct difference in the atmosphere, but they certainly might be a better way to supply CO2 to industries that need it. Producing it on-site would be an improvement over trucking it cross-country, or piping it.

 

[/url][/IMG]

 

So what? I also support most of those statements even if being critical with AGW (except the carbon sequestering because I consider it a waste of money). This is just a new proof of your poor reasoning (and, may I say "idiotic behaviour"?)

What is relevant to this discussion, and you refuse to consider it because you are just another believer of the Climatist Church of the Warmnotology blindly following your High Priests indications, without the less critical review of what they say (otherwise you would have not posted that idiotice on the AAPG without having checked first), is:

"Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The Earth’s climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models. To be predictive, any model of future climate should also accurately model known climate and greenhouse gas variations recorded in the geologic history of the past 200,000 years."