What Do We Think About Climate Change

Fastteddy
Sounds about right except the Socialist republics of Europe were trying to gain tax dollars from the scam so they might just continue?

 

A telling commentary on the erosion of support in the political and public forums to the foundation of the AGW agenda.........


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/18/the_winter_of_global_warming_104451.html

 

That little rant exposes you completely: you believe global warming is false because it's a convenient fit with your paranoid political phobias and fear of "The Left," rather than because it fits the science.

Unfortunately for you, scientific theories are not decided by public opinion polls, and you can't change facts by changing people's opinions. Nor can you make them go away by trying to politicize them, or by claiming most scientists are somehow in thrall to that mythical, monolithic, worldwide Leftist conspiracy that you and people like you are so scared to death of.

What's it like to check under your bed and in your closet for left-wing radicals every night before you go to sleep, and every morning when you wake up? To live in fear that the whole world is out to get you and everything you believe in? How do you handle it without getting ulcers or losing your hair?

Aside from babbling to relieve the pressure, I mean....

 

So do tell, Troy: Just what does 'decide' a scientific theory?

Jimbo

 

Scientific research.

 

You mean evidence in the form of observations, which are the result of research, right?

Jimbo

 

You aren't Socrates, Jimbo, and I'm not gonna play Twenty Questions with you. You'll start from reasonable facts, and somehow come up with completely fantastic conclusions anyway....

 

So what does "scientific research" produce, Troy?

Jimbo

 

UK CO2 emissions since before the industrial revolution. From National Energy Foundation, data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Data compiled by G. Marland, T. A. Boden and R. J. Andres of ORNL

 

Sounds like the exact same study from which I posted data. 'ORNL' = Oak Ridge National Labs. As I said, the numbers are right in front of your eyes: ~70 years ago, Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were 1/10 of present, yet atmospheric CO2 was rising.

So if we try real hard and maybe cut 25 or even 50% of our present CO2 emissions, that will somehow magically reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration, in spite of the uncontested facts of a rising CO2 concentration when our emissions were 1/10 of present (a 90% reduction for the math challenged).

Please explain how this could be so.

Jimbo

 

assuming what you are saying is accurate ( which is kinda a flip of the coin ) and given the 4 tons of co2 per person we emit today ( and there area almost 7 billion of us these days ) then it becomes fairly obvious that even at 1/10 present emissions 70 years ago the total emissions would be so huge as to effect the atmospheric chemistry

if you add 1/10 or 1/100 your still adding
could be why the atmospheric total went up eh Jim

Allen
I made a mistake and that graph does not depict world wide emissions, I think, but only emissions in the UK

climate is global therefor the data presented should also be of a global nature and not simply of a local area

I for one can admit my errors and gladly learn from them
in future I will be a bit more careful to check the global or local nature of my data sources

thats probably why there was a discrepancy

cheers
B

 

Jimbo, the fact that emissions were smaller in 1950 hardly translates into your assertion that they were "insignicant," and therefore couldn't have been having any sort of effect on the atmosphere. They were simply having a smaller (but very real and measurable) effect.

Less is not the same thing as none. Is that really so hard to grasp?

 

As Boston points out, we're still adding a gas to the existing amount of the same gas (and the others...).

I guess this vid is referred to earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

 

Wrong again Jimbo.

Here is a quote from the review paper at the link http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf:

"These early investigations
found that model fingerprints of the stratospheric
cooling and tropospheric warming in
response to increases in atmospheric CO2 were
identifiable in observations (Chapter 1, Figure
1.3A). The pattern similarity between modeled
and observed changes generally increased over
the period of the radiosonde record."

Here are the references they give to the work that made those predictions, the predictions that you say the "warmers" never made:

Karoly et al., 1994;
Santer et al., 1996a;
Tett et al., 1996;
Folland et al., 1998;
Sexton et al., 2001

I apologize for the incompleteness of the references. Would you like to see the full references?

 

Nope, no conspiracy, just a bunch of folks who think like this...............

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club


BTW, I don't go to bed in fear every night, I've never feared the truth. Besides, you leftist elitists are going to get your asses handed to you this year