Finally.

 

Yeah just like Copernicus was alone with his silly "The Earth turns around the sun" idea..

and frankly, those leftist currents are stupid; The babyboomers spend thier youth and lives having free love, doing dope, doing what they want...now they're the ones in suits telling us not to pollute, save the enviromment and all...

 

Yeah dick-for-brains..you get all the fun, and we have to clean after you, WE have to think about OUR future, the same one you didn't give a rat's ass about?

Screw that; where's my generationnal war, I want to not care as well

 

 

EDIT: Oh my I thought there was only 3 pages of that going on..my bad...

 

And the republicans dint do that? Whats this hate with baby boomers lol.

 

 

Also another foolgenius myth: At original publication, Copernicus' epoch-making book caused only mild controversy, and provoked no fierce sermons about contradicting Holy Scripture. 

It only got really bad when some monks thought: hey when the we orbit around the sun, and the sun is like a fire, maybe the stars are like suns themselves very far away and orbiting around are other planets with on them other people.

Really funny people always cite some "genius who was named a fool in his time" when 99% of the scientific community thinks the theory is retarded.

Can't we agree that if there is a risk of something occuring, it is best to minimize the danger? Just because something may seem unlikely doesn't mean it shouldn't be prepared for. I know Frogboy, being CEO and all , should have some knowledge of risk management

• every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
• the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
• every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
• the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
• every year since 1964 has been warmer than 1956
• every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Going back a few pages just because we need some new material and I've been away for a bit:

This is NASA, guys.  You really think they are being blinded by a liberal pinko bias?  How does that happen, exactly?  We just went through eight years of politically motivated attempts to control what these people were saying, and it didn't work.  You really trying to say Obama is succeeding here where Bush failed? 

What about the Science Council of Japan?  You think they give two figs either way about small government or the erosion of conservative American values?  They are doing simple science, and they don't care about my biases, or yours, for that matter.  I'm sure they have their own, uniquely Japanese biases which no doubt involve tentacles.  My point is that when you look at the scientific 'consensus' on a global level it's nigh on impossible to reduce it to political ideology.  The work speaks for itself, and it's too widely distributed to chalk up to worldview alone, or even to self-interest (climate scientists made a living before AGW, you know?)  

The comment was tongue-in-cheek and certainly not about 'those who don't agree.'  I'm quite happy with the idea that you have critically examined the evidence and found it wanting - you are free to draw your own conclusions, even if I can't understand how you reach them. 

It's pretty clear what the vested interests are on the skeptic side, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why most every reputable climate scientist in the world, and those who believe them, have vested interests in declaring low-grade, long-term apocalypse. 

Satan's Spin Doctors refers specifically to the spin strategists for Big Tobacco, who, again I'm not comparing you or anyone else in this thread to.  That said, here is a strongly-worded report (crafted by liberal spin doctors, go team!) which conclusively demonstrates that Exxon Mobil is paying former members of the Tobacco Lobby to work their magic on climate change (see table 3).  Guess whose side they are on?

My point in the earlier comment was that these people are effective, and quite willing to earn their living by confusing the populace their clients are killing.  I wish the Green Illuminati had used its vast resources and control over all Scientific Associations and Governments to recruit them first, because while I might find them morally repugnant I can't argue with their results. 



Moosetek13 - Mumble already shot this one down, several times, but you bring it up every time you come through this thread.  Hopefully to put the nail in the coffin -

'they' in the 1970s were a book, a few articles in magazines like Newsweek, and a small amount of speculation in scientific journals based on recently discovered glacial cycles.   This guy has collected everything your  chosen pundit recycled his meme from in one place, for your convenience: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

'they' in 2009 is everybody who has an education in Climate Science which goes beyond local weatherman, who isn't also being paid by Exxon or the API.  Mumble gave you a comprehensive list way upthread.  If both Academia Brasiliera de Ciências and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had said we were looking at an Ice Age in the 70's maybe you would have a point.  As it is, I guess we should be happy you are using a talking point which was debunked more recently than Psychoak's Satellites of Truth/Ground Stations of Betrayal Theory.  Maybe you could stop using it, now, so we can move on?  



It's interesting that there's no linebreak between those sentences, Daiwa.  If a casual reader wandered by he could take the second sentence as a continuation of the first.

"I want to keep my money so the science isn't settled."

You didn't really mean it that way, did you?  Because that would be as interesting in its own way as Psychoak's assertion that Florida and Italy are small loss to humanity. 

Please understand, I'm not trying to demonize those who don't agree with my liberal biases (you are doing fine without me ^^), but aren't we confusing what motivates us (i.e. greed, apathy) with what the world tells us?  It's called An Inconvenient Truth for a reason....



See, here's what's funny about that analogy.  Copernicus, or Galileo, or whatever persecuted/vindicated genius you'd like to assess, was pitting *repeatable observations* against an established faith-based ideology.  Back in the day established ideology won, short-term, because repeatable observations weren't yet en vogue. 

Which is why the all little puppies are laughing at you - the present conversation deals with an entire disciplined community of people who are making repeatable observations over several decades vs....what, exactly?  I see the skepticism, more importantly, I see motivations for it which seem psychological, political, or financial, but nowhere do I see repeatable observations which show countering information.



I like that post a bunch, reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/

The data is adjusted for a good reason, and the methodology is laid out in detail.  If Eschenbach used easily available resources to get his results and they were different from what NOAA was claiming then he might actually have something.  As it is the best response to this I could find in 5 minutes or less is the Economist's here, and Eschenbach apparently agrees, since he puts up a rebuttal linked at the bottom, which is responded to in turn.  I'd say it's a fairly hard pwning, but I'm sure the OP did its job of mocking up another point for 'debate' to prevent actual policy shift. 

Meanwhile, I like the Economist's perspective on items like this:  "my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story"

Not once, in all the sound and fury of 15 pages of comments in this thread alone have we seen a link to that peer-reviewed journal article.  A few thoroughly debunked criticisms of the data, or the way it's interpreted, by bought former weathermen just isn't the same thing, and I can't help but admire the dissonance loops some folks must jump through to maintain a worldview where it is. 

I'd love to see the skeptic's narrative on the theory of gravity next, assuming its existence affects your wallets, of course.

This isn't about liberals or conservatives. It's the amount of confidence one puts in a handful of scientists who are doing the actual leg work for this stuff and right now, it's looking like it's pretty sloppy.

It is whether we accept that the current PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to alter the earth's temperature measurably. And on that, it's conjecture.

As for GISS, someone just posted an article that demonstrates that the data NASA relies on gets "adjusted" prior to them seeing it and those adjustments seem pretty suspect.

The more the issue gets looked at, the sloppier it all gets.  

And the other issue has to do with the religious feel of the issue.  I firmly believe that evolution is the mechanism that got us to where we are.  However, if someone is a "creationist" I certainly don't get angry about it.  I don't care if someone thinks God or elves put us here.

By contrast, people get really pissed off if you have any doubts about global warming. I've witnessed this personally.

Heck, today (literally today) someone on Facebook de-friended my wife because he put up a status like "When will these idiots accept that climate change is real and we're the cause" and my wife wrote "I'm not convinced we're the cause" and that was all it took for him to de-friend her.  

That, my friend, has the stench of a religious argument and not a scientific argument.  Even arguing Bush or Obama doesn't seem to get people as uptight as whether one is part of the Global Warming faithful or not.

 

So what if it's NASA?  One of the problems with AGW is that the GISS data are now subject to a lot of head scratching.

Even us AGW skeptics are willing to believe that it may be a bit warmer now - I've been around since 1956, I've seen the extent to which certain glaciers have retreated & all the rest, and I'm willing to accept that.  It's the whole idea that CO2 is the principle cause, that CO2 levels must be reduced by means expensive and limiting, and that we know what we're doing when we attempt it that I'm not prepared to accept at face value.  The arguments about climate change & AGW/cap-trade/'carbon footprint' get conflated regularly.

Wait wait wait.

Are you suggesting that AGW is a repeatable, observable phenomenon? Since when?

As the CRU said themselves, they can't explain the lack of warming right now and it's a travesty they can't.

I'm not looking for some sort of absolute proof or something. I don't have a vested interest. It's academic to me. Heck, I'd benefit more than any of you probably with cap and trade. lol.  All I'm looking for is for it to reach the repeatable, observable stage.  Is that asking too much?

I don't need to be an evolutionary scientist to accept evolution because they have demonstrated adaption and mutation in action.  Even without DNA research we had enough evidence to make evolution convincing to me.  But AGW? Not so much.

And AGW is much simpler as a hypothesis: CO2 PPM has gone up. Temperature readings have gone up since 1976. CO2 traps heat. Humans pump out a lot of CO2. Therefore, humans are causing temperature to go up.

One doesn't have to be a climatologist to understand AGW's hypothesis.

Exactly.  I could be much more easily convinced that deforestation is the issue or urban heat islands accumulating are the issue.  These things DO have an impact.

I could even see the argument that all the urban heat islands in the northern hemisphere causing adjustments to the ocean currents that are resulting in warmer temperatures.

We've wiped out much of the planet's forests. That's a real problem.

Heck, the millions of farm animals used in agribusiness seem more convincing. Lots of methane.

But CO2? No way. 

And what's worse, the more we look at the raw data the worse the story gets because even that looks (at best) sloppily collected or (at worst) monkeyed around with to get to a pre-conceived conclusion.

Most of the fifties and sixties were run by democrats, so no, the republicans didn't do that.

 

Democrats had philibuster proof majorities for most of the time period, morons like Krugman love heaping everything on the president, but congress runs the show.  If you're obsessed with the presidency since they are the executive, they still ran Vietnam into the ground for eight years.  Educate yourself on the past a little, it will help with your current delusional state as well.  The Republican party still hasn't recovered from Lincoln, a lot of southerners hate them irrationally despite holding to the same views.  If it weren't for the Civil rights act going through a democratic administration, they'd still be under the two thirds threshold most years.

 

 

Who here would cut their balls off in highschool just in case they get testicular cancer later on?

 

The risk, assuming the catastropic scenario occurs, is that we lose some land and have a net gain in both viable land and food output on existing areas.  A wider hospitable range, and longer growing seasons in general.

 

The management, if you want to call it that, is to cut our balls off, feed them to Al Gore, and eat the grass in our backyards while he turns into the richest man on earth.  None of the proposals will do a damn thing to lower the CO2 levels, none of them will drop the temperatures.  They will put the entire world into a deep recession and starve several hundred million people.

 

Wow dude, that came outta nowhere. If thats all you have to counter what I said, then we might as well be getting into a juevenille argument about who's dick is bigger and yo mamma jokes. So if you don't belive that I'm bigger than you, just go ask yo mamma; if she can still walk.

 

* I spells wrong to phit in yo.

in yo mamma.

 

But seriously, I hope we're all intelligent and honorable enough to leave highschool b.s. as a hazy memory in the past.

 

And not repeat the idiotic experience all over again.

I work at a university, as "staff" rather than "faculty" - and even though some of the "staff" have PhDs of their own, they aren't regarded as being "real" doctors. Those of us without PhDs are pretty much ignored, even in areas outside the bounds of the degree in question. I'm still dealing with an enrollment spike problem from a decision two years ago we TOLD the department chair would happen, but his name had PhD attatched to it, so the people who dealt with the issues on a daily basis *couldn't* be right about it.

One of the things that apparently gets issued with a PhD is an unshakable determination that anyone without one is hopelessly inept and uninformed in any area a PhD chooses to bend his attention to. I deal with that attitude on a daily basis, and Mumble seems to be following the party line there. Which is why I can state with a fair amount of certainty that whoever wrote that Economist article has a PhD in *something*. It really doesn't matter what it's in, because he has a PhD and people who don't are by definition inferior.

Yeah, paving over large sections of the planet couldn't possibly have an effect on heat.

As to CO2, I really should have looked into this earlier, seeing as I *do* have a degree in chemistry. Beer's law has not been repealed. For the uninformed, Beer's law relates concentration to transmission of light through a medium. And if you do even a bit of math, it becomes blindingly obvious that even at 350 ppm, the atmosphere is effectively opaque to the wavelengths CO2 absorbs, doubling the concentration would have a completely negligible effect on heat.

http://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm (the original article is in german)

Or for a fuller explanation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Neither of these authors have any sort of wiki article, so I have to assume they're paid by enron and no one's bothered to figure out how yet

Anteachtaire, you're supposed to wait until you finish reading before slipping into stupid mode for the reply.

 

Cutting your balls off to avoid testicular cancer would be risk management.  You are mitigating the damage from a future possibility.  It's a completely reasonable course of action by the standards the environmentalists have set for global warming.  Some people end up with testicular cancer in their twenties you know, you can't wait too long!

 

Interesting article....and yet we are told there is a "scientific consensus" about AGW, when articles like this prove otherwise.

(quoting frogboy) google chrome mkay

That, my friend, has the stench of a religious argument and not a scientific argument.  Even arguing Bush or Obama doesn't seem to get people as uptight as whether one is part of the Global Warming faithful or not.

(/quote)

on creationism, i couldnt care less what they believe in, as long as they dont force children to learn that nonsense. children are our biggest asset and stuffing their heads with gibberish is very unwise.

on AGW. I grant you the comparison to a religious sentiment on this is valid somewhat as both arguments are very heated but the comparison to creationism is totally unvalid. Why people get worked up about AGW, is that IF (yes its not proven etc), but IF AGW is real and we dont take action then we are f***ed. If AGW is not real and we still take action (like the sceptics fear) then we might slow down our economy for the sake of getting cleaner technology and development...does this really sound so bad? at worst we avoid a global catastrophe, at best we create the basis for a cleaner future.

Whats not to like??

PS! i suggest everyone to read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_growth (there were several interesting articles in 2008 new scientist) slowing down the economy doesnt seem like such a bad thing to me.

That is the fallacy (and the lie) of AGW.  The second part is completely false.  IF there is no AGW and IF we trash the world's (not just the US) economy trying to fix a problem that does not exist, then many-many millions (if not billions) will suffer and die because of it.

Cleaning up the ecology is a good and noble endeavor and is being done by the primary non-kyoto signing nation (USA - Output down 3% in 10 years) while the kyoto signers continue to raise polution (up 0.1% in 10 years). WITHOUT destroying the economy which would make it impossible to help anyone.  But cleaning up the environment is being done without a mandate to destroy the economy.  Keep it up with the religion of AGW and there will be no assets to use to clean up anything, or improve anything, or help anyone.  And millions will die "but our intentions were good!!!!!!".

Actually it's what I say when I have to stop playing for a bit and get some actual work done.

In any case don't get so hung up on winning and losing, after all it is the internet (i.e. special olympics).

The argo project looks interesting.  What I found odd is that somewhere in their site it is stated that the ocean seems to have had a steady temperature for the past couple of years.  Immediately it is added that this does not mean that AGW is not happening!!! Ugh. Since if the results were that the temperature were rising AGW denialists and sceptics can of course simply make the same statement. 

As well http://www.climateprediction.net/ looks interesting.  When I see the news reports of 45,000 delegates to the Copenhagen summit I wonder why this distributed computing project seems so underwhelming when arguably it should be the one with the most terraflops. 

Your injuring the dignity of noble competitors. 

This is the easiest to digest summary of the GW debate.

I am truly enjoying this thread of pros and cons concerning global warming because it brings back memories from over 35 years ago when another controversy was just as passionately discussed by people and the scientific community....only then it was global cooling we were headed for.

Psychoak, instead of instantly assuming someone isn't educated you may listen. For one in the 50ties we didnt know about global warming. It's also funny that you consider that THE past. Maybe we learn about different things here and not about who had the congressional majority in america. Regardless I know that the Democrats had it.

CaptainWin get your head out of your ass and read the thread or even this last page just ONCE. 

Quote (cmon we Chromers got 4%, we ought to be supported):

Moosetek13 - Mumble already shot this one down, several times, but you bring it up every time you come through this thread.  Hopefully to put the nail in the coffin -

'they' in the 1970s were a book, a few articles in magazines like Newsweek, and a small amount of speculation in scientific journals based on recently discovered glacial cycles.   This guy has collected everything your  chosen pundit recycled his meme from in one place, for your convenience:http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

'they' in 2009 is everybody who has an education in Climate Science which goes beyond local weatherman, who isn't also being paid by Exxon or the API.  Mumble gave you a comprehensive list way upthread.  If both Academia Brasiliera de Ciências and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had said we were looking at an Ice Age in the 70's maybe you would have a point.  As it is, I guess we should be happy you are using a talking point which was debunked more recently than Psychoak's Satellites of Truth/Ground Stations of Betrayal Theory.  Maybe you could stop using it, now, so we can move on?   

 

Really whenever another one of these replies pop up I'll just quote bright Kestrel who will explain it for you once more.

 

quote:

IF AGW is real and we dont take action then we are f***ed. If AGW is not real and we still take action (like the sceptics fear) then we might slow down our economy for the sake of getting cleaner technology and development...

No i agree with the skeptics, this is bullshit. Doing all these thing because it "could"happen is fucking retarded. Like psychoak said, you don't cut of your balls because there's a change you could get testicle cancer. However this isn't a "could".

 The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.^[92]

 

 

Quote=Daiwa :

Comparing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 to 1990 levels, the U.S. emissions were up by 15.8%,^[100] with irregular fluctuations from one year to another but a general trend to increase.^[101] At the same time, the EU group of 23 (EU-23) Nations had reduced their emissions by 5%.^[102] 

The entire world ratified the treaty, that china/russia/brazil/india are in an economic boom and aren't the most trustworthy doesnt mean the kyoto protocol was flawed, it means their emissions make it look like kyoto was a failure. Other countries (ie the EU) cut their emissions. You didn't even try. Not only were you using skewed data you were also lieing: America's emissions are 15.8 percent up. 

 

 

 

 

PS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png thats... funny. 

 

No, that is what the accolytes of AGW want to believe, but as anyone (other than a faith blinded zealot) can easily discern, "they" in 2009 are a few key scientists (faking data, supressing dissent, destroying raw data, and ignoring the basic rules of science) and power hungry politicians.  The later are feeding the former with money (follow the money), and the former are feeding the later with a semblance of legitimacy (until they stray too far off the reservation that even the faux scientists cannot support them - al gore anyone).

The honest people in 2009 see AGW as a viable hypothesis that needs to be tested along with other hypothesis so that we do not cut out the appendix when the patient has tonsilitis.  The blind faithful just want to cut and now, damn the decisions, full incision ahead.

It would be better for you to go back and read ALL the posts instead of just the ones you like.

I posted the rebuttal to that at #355 - Eschenbach, to put it politely, should revisit his results.  Additionally, the adjustment process is transparent.  No conspiracy, no AGW bias. 



Creationism, as inerz points out, is a poor analogy, because your religious beliefs affect me only inasmuch as you try to force them on me.  AGW affects my grandchildren, not just yours.  A better analogy:

A tailings dam upriver may be leaking radio-isotopes into your town's water supply.  A group of scientists warns the town based on readings they are taking of the water.  One faction of citizens (including the mining company which owns the dam) does the following:

- critiques the data collected by the scientists
- critiques the conclusions reached from the data
- criticizes the scientists reaching the conclusions
- brings out a set of vocal intellectuals of their own to draw different conclusions
- spends a bunch of money to influence City Council and other citizens
- insists that the water is fine, because I drank it yesterday and didn't get sick
- even if it isn't the actions being considered won't make it better, imo
- even if it isn't it will cost me money/time I don't want to spend to take action
- even if it isn't Humanity will go on
- even if Humanity dies out the planet will persist

And then one of the fine people from this faction asks why everyone else in the town is yelling at him like they've become religious zealots.  Seriously?  People are upset because they have to drink the water too, and if you manage to convince City Council not to take action and end up being wrong then you have implicitly poisoned them (and yourself).  That's what pisses people off.  You, sir, are gambling my future because it suits you.



Since you don't like GISS and CRU, right now, (based on Eschenberg?  Really?) let's looks a few other sources:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

Dunno about you, but most of these fall under repeatable observations, for me...

 



Praise the Lord and pass the solar panels.  You admit it might be getting warmer and that we might be causing it.  Was that so hard?  Please explain to me what we are arguing about, now that that's out of the way.  You want to go with a deforestation/methane hypothesis instead of CO2 I'm more than fine with that - it's something to work with, and it's still, yep, Anthropogenic Global Warming.   

If the skeptic crowd worked as hard to provide alternative scenarios for how and why the planet is warming and what we have to do about it as they do denying that anything is happening then we'd be a lot closer to workable solutions, imo. 

 

Just go write for Rush Limbaugh already. That argument has more holes in it than yo mama.