The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

[tlongII]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

[2centsworth]

it's the new home of the communist party.

[balli]

it's the new home of the communist party.

Then get the fuck out.

[rolleyes]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.


:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes
:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[peewee's lovechild]

Global Warming means hotter summers, colder winters and extreme storms.

I'm pretty sure we're seeing all that happening.

So, there's no point to this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Global Warming means hotter summers, colder winters and extreme storms.

I'm pretty sure we're seeing all that happening.

So, there's no point to this thread.
Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid. As someone who understands the sciences involved, I have been saying it's a crock of shit for years.

[tlongII]

What it means is that it's all a crock of shit.

[2centsworth]

Then get the fuck out.


listen lee harvey, do you only know how foolish you sound on the internet? didn't you also say you were going to move to Chile if McCain won.

[mardigan]

It's manbearpig, stupid.

[BradLohaus]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/


I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Hansen supervisor takes aim at the armageddon

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 28th January 2009 14:18 GMT

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising to the data set:

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary here) for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting from the man-made warming hypothesis.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I hate cold weather.

[Wild Cobra]

meteorologists and climatologists don't get along
It only requires one more course in college to get a degree as a climatologist rather than a meteorologist. You need more courses in the geosciences to understand the complete earth system enough to make claim to global warming.

[clambake]

the greatest scam in history is organized religion.

[RandomGuy]

It only requires one more course in college to get a degree as a climatologist rather than a meteorologist. You need more courses in the geosciences to understand the complete earth system enough to make claim to global warming.

And exactly how many of those classes have you taken?

[RandomGuy]

As someone who understands the sciences involved,

I have no doubt you believe that.

[RandomGuy]

All one has to do is prove conclusively that something else has caused warming trends other than man-made greenhouse gases, and provide enough weight of evidence for honest scientists who actually are good critical thinkers to find that the evidence points to the alternative.

It isn't some secret, it just takes people who are good at critical thinking, which is not something that political hacks who pretend to be scientists generally excel at.

The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.

"I am a political hack, so EVERYBODY must be a political hack of one shade or another, and incapable of honestly evaluating evidence."

That is an erroneous assumption.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have the time to delve into this to the level of being able to really truly evaluate the data. I have said as much.

What I, and just about everybody else for that matter, am faced with is formulating a course of action based on known data and weigh evidence according to a subjective assessment of reliability.

You have proven yourself to be biased and generally untrustworthy when it comes to intellectual honesty about the strengths and weaknesses of your assertions. I cannot trust your evaluation of this data with any real degree of certainty.

By the same token, you and Darrin have provided some fair evidence that the bodies behind the bulk of the AGW theory have some of the same intellectual blinders that you do.

There exists on one hand, a fair amount of data supporting a conclusion from someone absolutely known to be biased, but cannot be logically dismissed as incorrect simply because they are not honest.

There exists on the other hand, data from people who do appear to have some bias, but who have a lot of data that supports a completely opposite conclusion. This also cannot be logicaly dismissed as incorrect simply because of this bias.

I still need to make a decision, because there is at least a reasonable possibility that the IPCC is at least somewhat correct.

The worst case scenario for AGW may indeed be unlikely or even remote, but the conservative risk-mitigation strategy says that a moderate effort to avoid this is warranted.

If it really turns out to be false, we have not broken the bank to avoid AGW, and if it turns out to be true, we have at the very least bought ourselves as a civilization time to fix/avoid the worst.

This is especially true since WC and the "deniers" (for wont of a better term) can provide so little evidence of how likely their worst-case scenario is, i.e. a ruined economy. That it is reasonably possible suggests we moderate our response, as I have advocated. It is also reasonably possible that our economy will actually grow faster if we act to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This mitigating factor adds to the case for acting to cut them.

This is how to deal with uncertainties. You evaluate risks, data, and a course of action and find the solution that offers the best mitigation of known risks.

I don't completely understand all of the data, nor do I have time to do so. I don't have to in order to decide on a course of action.

[Blake]

it's all been just a big scam this whole time?

cool, now I can go toss my Prius and go back to my 5 mpg Hummer. Thanks Tlong.

[ORION]

Shoog goes out to the country and burns tires. I've seen him

[balli]

listen lee harvey, do you only know how foolish you sound on the internet? didn't you also say you were going to move to Chile if McCain won.
I would have too. And I'm serious now. Since you're dumb & crazy enough to truly think America is a communist nation, get the fuck out. If I thought this place was commie, I'd bounce too. Fortunately, I'm not a horrible neo-con ideologue, so I'm not dumb or crazy enough to think America is a communist nation, but if I did, I'd grow a pair and leave.

[2centsworth]

I would have too. And I'm serious now. Since you're dumb & crazy enough to truly think America is a communist nation, get the fuck out. If I thought this place was commie, I'd bounce too. Fortunately, I'm not a horrible neo-con ideologue, so I'm not dumb or crazy enough to think America is a communist nation, but if I did, I'd grow a pair and leave.

i didn't say America is a communist nation. I said the global warming crowd is the new home of the communist party.

[balli]

i didn't say America is a communist nation. I said the global warming crowd is the new home of the communist party.

Dude, get real. Don't come in here and call the vast majority of the American public communists. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't just call people commies because you're a skeptic of GW. What the fuck you know about Marxism, Leninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc, that you would dare accuse hundreds of millions of red blooded Americans of subscribing to such theories? Not a damn thing.

You're an intellectually worthless joke. And if you want a response that more serious than, "get the fuck out," put forth a post that would deserve it. Ass ignorant jerkoff.

[2centsworth]

Dude, get real. Don't come in here and call the vast majority of the American public communists. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't just call people commies because you're a skeptic of GW. What the fuck you know about Marxism, Leninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc, that you would dare accuse hundreds of millions of red blooded Americans of subscribing to such theories? Not a damn thing.

You're an intellectually worthless joke. And if you want a response that more serious than, "get the fuck out," put forth a post that would deserve it. Ass ignorant jerkoff.

lee harvey, you have problems with your reading comprehension. because I said the GW crowd is the new home of the communist party doesn't mean everyone in the GW crowd is a communist. Math baby, it's a beautiful thing.

[tlongII]

All one has to do is prove conclusively that something else has caused warming trends other than man-made greenhouse gases, and provide enough weight of evidence for honest scientists who actually are good critical thinkers to find that the evidence points to the alternative.

It isn't some secret, it just takes people who are good at critical thinking, which is not something that political hacks who pretend to be scientists generally excel at.

The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.

"I am a political hack, so EVERYBODY must be a political hack of one shade or another, and incapable of honestly evaluating evidence."

That is an erroneous assumption.

Just what global-warming trends are you talking about? Global climatic change has occurred thoughout the earth's history.

[ClingingMars]

randomguy invading this thread, spewing his bullshit...who DIDN'T see that one coming...

-Mars

[Ignignokt]

Everyday Random Guy wakes up and gets Dong Slapped by colder temperatures.

[2centsworth]

Random guy is the ultimate victim.

[Bob Lanier]

No once again tlong was proven as telling the truth. tlong told forum here all along this was all lies that planet was not stable weather and is same thing with lies oil was not finite resource. As I said over and over earth has rules if any species in earth did this they would be relegate from ecosystem, sued, and species will leave and get all money and lawyer fees paid.

But so many stupid fucking idiots in these forums keep believing this endless lie from US media about these climate gets warmer. If any people believe this would have any brain they would know this cannot be true or else people would not keep doing what they does.

Of course even though tlong was tell truth all along tlong had to have so many insults and people calling him liar here. And now when tlong am showed as one telling truth all along person like you instead of gives apology to tlong just asks like worthless scum that you are.

[RandomGuy]

Dude, get real. Don't come in here and call the vast majority of the American public communists. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You can't just call people commies because you're a skeptic of GW. What the fuck you know about Marxism, Leninsm, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc, that you would dare accuse hundreds of millions of red blooded Americans of subscribing to such theories? Not a damn thing.

You're an intellectually worthless joke. And if you want a response that more serious than, "get the fuck out," put forth a post that would deserve it. Ass ignorant jerkoff.

2 cents is worth little more than that, and is patently incapable of composing rational thought with any respect for people he disagrees with.

[RandomGuy]

randomguy invading this thread, spewing his bullshit...who DIDN'T see that one coming...

-Mars

ClingingMars invading a thread, spewing his bullshit about any liberal who has the guts to disagree with him. Who DIDN'T see that one coming?

[RandomGuy]

Just what global-warming trends are you talking about? Global climatic change has occurred thoughout the earth's history.

The current warming trends that the IPCC and scientists who agree with them are likely caused in large part by man-made actions, such as emissions of greenhouse gases.

Indeed, there have been a lot of changes to earth's climate in its billions of years of existence.

But this is the first time that we have been around and potentially doing things that could affect our overall global climate.

I would guess you are implying that because changes have happened in the past without us, then current changes can't be caused by our actions.

That is patently illogical.

Is that what you are implying?

[RandomGuy]

Why is it currently fashionable to be a global warming "skeptic"?

I find it a bit bizarre, but it is an emotionally appealing movement for conservatives. Oddly enough it seems to have much the same emotional appeal as "9-11 wuz an inside job".

[Sec24Row7]

And exactly how many of those classes have you taken?

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and I do not believe in AGW.

[Sec24Row7]

The current warming trends that the IPCC and scientists who agree with them are likely caused in large part by man-made actions, such as emissions of greenhouse gases.

Indeed, there have been a lot of changes to earth's climate in its billions of years of existence.

But this is the first time that we have been around and potentially doing things that could affect our overall global climate.

I would guess you are implying that because changes have happened in the past without us, then current changes can't be caused by our actions.

That is patently illogical.

Is that what you are implying?

Nah... but having the world being in an ice age with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere historically kinda blows a hole in the theory that the 180 PPM rise we have seen is causing warming.

[RandomGuy]

Nah... but having the world being in an ice age with 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere historically kinda blows a hole in the theory that the 180 PPM rise we have seen is causing warming.

when did that happen?

[RandomGuy]

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and I do not believe in AGW.

Good for you. Really. It is nice to see someone with some mildly appropriate science background weigh in.

[2centsworth]

2 cents is worth little more than that, and is patently incapable of composing rational thought with any respect for people he disagrees with.

i consistently make you look foolish in financial threads it's not even funny.

btw, what was your tax formula on gifted stock?:lol

[RandomGuy]

when did that happen?

Googled it.

I am guessing that would be after a period of massive volcanic eruptions, leading me to question the causality of linking CO2 to a cooling ice age.



#4. I think the period you meant was the Cambrian period that began around 542 mya. It has been estimated that CO2 was then at 4500 ppm (16 times pre-industrial level) and Earth`s mean surface temperature over this periods duration was 7 degrees C above modern levels.

Interesting bit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/thanks_for_all_your_comments.html



(shrugs)

I would assume that the scientists studying the phenomenon have probably addressed that at some point.

[RandomGuy]

This message is hidden because 2centsworth is on your ignore list.

I am guessing that 2 cents is responding to my calling him a dick.

Whatever you said, you are still on ignore, and still a dick. Have at.

[RandomGuy]

mF_anaVcCXg10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.

[Sec24Row7]

Googled it.

I am guessing that would be after a period of massive volcanic eruptions, leading me to question the causality of linking CO2 to a cooling ice age.




Interesting bit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/01/thanks_for_all_your_comments.html



(shrugs)

I would assume that the scientists studying the phenomenon have probably addressed that at some point.

http://www.lasraicesranch.com/images/misc/carbonif.gif

Notice how well temperature linearly tracks atmospheric CO2 over 600 million years? No? That's because it doesn't.

[Duff McCartney]

Damn of course the temperatures were higher millions of years ago. Earth was just a ball of molten lava at that time.

[2centsworth]

I am guessing that 2 cents is responding to my calling him a dick.

Whatever you said, you are still on ignore, and still a dick. Have at.

Ur admitting complete ownage. I wouldn't want to debate me on financial issues either. Im not even a cpa and i know more about taxes than u. Maybe because i get paid by other than the government or ice tea. Lol

[Sec24Row7]

Damn of course the temperatures were higher millions of years ago. Earth was just a ball of molten lava at that time.

Jesus Christ...

Please attempt to read the graph again. This time, look at the labels on the curves.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

clearly humans were responsible for getting us out of the 1st ice age. we must be held accountable for our part now. must update firmware.

[ClingingMars]

Everyday Random Guy wakes up and gets Dong Slapped by colder temperatures.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[ClingingMars]

ClingingMars invading a thread, spewing his bullshit about any liberal who has the guts to disagree with him. Who DIDN'T see that one coming?

:lmao

good one, but I suppose you have work to do, re-defining global warming to whatever the climate changes to?

[ClingingMars]

mF_anaVcCXg10 minutes to put the whole debate in perspective.

video is old as dirt

"there might be aliens, get ready!1"

[peewee's lovechild]

Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid. As someone who understands the sciences involved, I have been saying it's a crock of shit for years.

Oh, you UNDERSTAND the sciences involved . . .

Well, that obviously makes you an expert of sorts.

I "understand" football and basketball. So, using your rationale, I should be a head coach in the NFL or NBA.

As for your Kool-Aid bullshit comment, you do realize that your boy McCain lost, don't ya?

[peewee's lovechild]

Everyday Random Guy wakes up and gets Dong Slapped by colder temperatures.

Which is the very concept of Global Warming.

Thanks.

[peewee's lovechild]

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and I do not believe in AGW.

So, one with a B.S. in Geology trumps Ph.D. geologists who support global warming?

[ClingingMars]

Oh, you UNDERSTAND the sciences involved . . .

Well, that obviously makes you an expert of sorts.

I "understand" football and basketball. So, using your rationale, I should be a head coach in the NFL or NBA.

As for your Kool-Aid bullshit comment, you do realize that your boy McCain lost, don't ya?

anyone who's a real conservative simply supported McCain because they didn't want Obama in office. pulling the McCain card is dumb.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

Ah yes, because two El Nino related cold winters counteract all of the other ecological, geological and meteorological evidence. Mmmmmm.


How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

The Keeling curve illustrates the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958, increasing by 2-3ppm/yr, that is undisputed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is undisputed.


Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set.

Which is all totally irrelevant as those standards were set to deal with particulates and smog, a seperate issue fromn CO2 pollution.


Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

The world still suffers from pollution-related acid rain, and cars are still major polluters, just not as bad as what they were in terms of particulates and sulphur oxides.


But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.

Most of the atmosphere (over 78%) is nitrogen... so what? Only a non-scientist would make a claim like "it's small therefore changing it won't affect anything". Look instead at the % increase (and he got those figures wrong anyway - pre-industrial CO2 conc. was about 250ppm, not 215) - about a 35% change in a century. Perturb any system by 35% and you will get significant changes to the sytem.


Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

A complete misinterpretation of what the IPCC actually does. IPCC reports are conglomerations of science published in respecteed journals from universities and other scientific organisation across the globe - they do NOT produce the science, they just compile it into one report, which shoots his grand conspiracy theory in the head... with a shotgun.


At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

Hmmmmm, more money being made by carbon credit business and scientific grants or Big Oil/Coal? About 10,000x more by the latter. Yet another straw man.


What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Ah yes, the delightful Fred Singer, noted hired-gun for cigarette companies ("there is no link between smoking and cancer") and oil companies ("there is no link between the trillions of tons of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere and a changing climate"). I wouldn't piss on the guy if he was on fire.


Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

No debate? Hahahahahahaha - these guys lost the debate 10 years ago, the just won't admit it. Want to debate climate science with real scientists, there is open, unmoderated debate of the science here:

http://www.realclimate.org/


So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset.

Um, no. Offsetting, now there is a scam. Offsetting is bullshit. If we want to save this planet we have to consume less and consume cleaner... and you know what, you don't have to pay anyone a dime to do that, you do it yourself and it actually SAVES you money.


Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

Um, no. How can it have been "hobbled for decades" by climate change when climate change has only actually been recognised by the US government in the last 2 years??? America's oilfields dried up, that's why there's been no drilling. As for ANWAR, there's about 12bil barrels there, or enough to run the US economy for 2 years.

Making ethanol from crops - bad idea. Indefensible. This moron should have done an article on that.


And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Because you've studied the science? No. Because you've trolled the net and re-hashed a populist conspiracy theory. Yes. You haven't even addressed the science!


Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

No, people like you are the scammers, and I hope that as we watch our planet's climate change due to the greed, laziness and stupidity of our species, endangering all that we have built in this wonderful civilisation, that one day we can hang people like you who use spurious argumants and misinformation to mislead laymen and excuse us from action. You are traitors to our species.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Articles like this make me furious because laymen will read it, and the author is clever enough to fool people into thinking that maybe it makes some sense. In fact, he has not addressed the science in any way, all he's done is rehash an old conspiracy theory and dress it up a little.

He hasn't refuted any of the science. His only scientific claim was that CO2 makes up a small part of the atmosphere and therefore changing its concentration won't have an effect. Hmmmm, let's examine that for a moment. So, by his rationale, CO2 is a meaningless gas - that is, if it was removed entirely from the atmosphere we wouldn't notice a difference. Um, no. The planet would lose vast quantities of heat that would not be absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 at wavelengths that do not escape the atmophere, not to mention the fact that every photosynthetic plant on earth would die since CO2 is food for them*. CO2, a large part of the carbon cycle, affects both life and climate intimately, and we've just changed the concentration of it in the atmosphere by 35% - to believe that will not have effects is ABSURD. This guy is a fucking moron

*studies show that some plants have problems in elevated CO2 conditions whilst others thrive, specifically eucalypts. Prepare for eucalypts to invade a space near you!

[FreeMason]

I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.

THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.




So fucking easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the shit isn't really funny anymore. :bang

[peewee's lovechild]

anyone who's a real conservative simply supported McCain because they didn't want Obama in office. pulling the McCain card is dumb.

Pulling the "I know more than you" card because you claim to "understand" the science behind global warming is fucking retarded at best.

You republican hardliners are beyond idiotic.

Hey, McCain lost . . . by a landslide.

[peewee's lovechild]

I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.

THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.




So fucking easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the shit isn't really funny anymore. :bang

What wasn't funny was the conservatives letting Wall Street butt fuck the American Public.

That wasn't funny at all.

But, hey, you Bushies will try to put a positive spin on it anyway.

[FreeMason]

Yeah dude, we are getting taxed for CO2.

Young lad, what in the dickens is CO2?


Hopefully the 2009 Tea.

[CosmicCowboy]

What wasn't funny was the conservatives letting Wall Street butt fuck the American Public.

That wasn't funny at all.

But, hey, you Bushies will try to put a positive spin on it anyway.

LOL

Dang!

Speaking of butt fucking the financial system all this time I thought Barnie Butt Fuck Frank was a democrat!

[Nbadan]

....blame Barney Frank! :lmao

What about Phil Gramm and John McCain, the Bush SEC and the do-nothing
GOP congress for not regulating derivatives and CBOs?

[Sec24Row7]

So, one with a B.S. in Geology trumps Ph.D. geologists who support global warming?

Einstein was a patent clerk.

Credentials don't mean shit when there isn't any proof of AGW. They have proof of warming which doesn't surprise anyone who looks at the geologic record.

They have no proof of a link between CO2 rising and it warming up. They have a 100 year trend with hot times in the middle and end and an almost constant rise in CO2 levels...

Meanwhile, I can post a 600 million year trend of atmospheric CO2 and no one wants to talk about it because it even further fucks up their argument of CO2 being a climate driver.

[peewee's lovechild]

Einstein was a patent clerk.

Credentials don't mean shit when there isn't any proof of AGW. They have proof of warming which doesn't surprise anyone who looks at the geologic record.

They have no proof of a link between CO2 rising and it warming up. They have a 100 year trend with hot times in the middle and end and an almost constant rise in CO2 levels...

Meanwhile, I can post a 600 million year trend of atmospheric CO2 and no one wants to talk about it because it even further fucks up their argument of CO2 being a climate driver.

Are you seriously comparing yourself to Einstein?

As for credentials not meaning shit . . . that's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

So, you're saying that you know more than a Ph.D?

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

[peewee's lovechild]

Besides, before Einstein started working in the patent office, (out of necessity, by the way), he had already published 2 scientific works. And, that was before he graduated with a degree in physics.

Exactly what have you published?

I'm amazed that a would be Einstein spends his time posting on SpursTalk.

[peewee's lovechild]

LOL

Dang!

Speaking of butt fucking the financial system all this time I thought Barnie Butt Fuck Frank was a democrat!

LOL

McCain: "You know, that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is — people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Hahaha, that was priceless!

[Sec24Row7]

Are you seriously comparing yourself to Einstein?

As for credentials not meaning shit . . . that's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

So, you're saying that you know more than a Ph.D?

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

Ok dipshit, you got me. I can't argue with a PHD because he has more credentials. WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ARGUE WITH ME? What is your scientific background besides making that icing volcano in 3rd grade?

That's why I said credentials didn't mean shit right after I used Einstein as evidence... so you wouldn't be able to take the tact that you did. But you, being the obtuse dipshit that you are decided to go ahead in spite of that anyway.

Nice failed flame. You have yet to dispute anything that I have said. You have not discussed the graph I posted that is 5 MILLION times the sample that most "Climate Scare" proponents use in their "proof" of AGW.

I would say THAT was the most idiotic thing that I had ever heard... if YOU HAD EVEN FUCKING SAID ANYTHING! Say something useful or shut the fuck up.

[peewee's lovechild]

Ok dipshit, you got me. I can't argue with a PHD because he has more credentials. WHAT THE FUCK GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ARGUE WITH ME? What is your scientific background besides making that icing volcano in 3rd grade?

That's why I said credentials didn't mean shit right after I used Einstein as evidence... so you wouldn't be able to take the tact that you did. But you, being the obtuse dipshit that you are decided to go ahead in spite of that anyway.

Nice failed flame. You have yet to dispute anything that I have said. You have not discussed the graph I posted that is 5 MILLION times the sample that most "Climate Scare" proponents use in their "proof" of AGW.

I would say THAT was the most idiotic thing that I had ever heard... if YOU HAD EVEN FUCKING SAID ANYTHING! Say something useful or shut the fuck up.

Hey, Einstein protege, how can I possibly argue with such a great intellect as yourself?

All I know is that there are people far more intelligent than yourself, with more and better credentials than the ones you have, that agree with global warming.

However, you don't need that much schooling to know that man made pollutants are indeed detrimental to the environment.

[peewee's lovechild]

Hey, where did you get that cute little graph anyway?

[Sec24Row7]

Go look up Scotese and Bemer.

They are PHD's...

[peewee's lovechild]

Go look up Scotese and Bemer.

They are PHD's...


Hey, where did you get that cute little graph anyway?

[Sec24Row7]

There are references on the graph to show you the sources of the information so people can look up the research.

Did they not teach you that in 3rd grade science class?

[Wild Cobra]

anyone who's a real conservative simply supported McCain because they didn't want Obama in office. pulling the McCain card is dumb.
That's already been explained to him countless times. He still just doesn't get it.

[Wild Cobra]

Pulling the "I know more than you" card because you claim to "understand" the science behind global warming is fucking retarded at best.

I guess you have neither read, or understand the numerous thing I posted about global warming in the Political Forum then.

I don't have to say I know more than you on the subject. It's flat out obvious!

[Wild Cobra]

What wasn't funny was the conservatives letting Wall Street butt fuck the American Public.

That wasn't funny at all.

But, hey, you Bushies will try to put a positive spin on it anyway.
How can the Bushies spin that when democrats controlled congress since January 2007?

Isn't you libtards throwing blame on the republicans when the republicans couldn't to shit about it?

[Wild Cobra]

....blame Barney Frank! :lmao

What about Phil Gramm and John McCain, the Bush SEC and the do-nothing
GOP congress for not regulating derivatives and CBOs?
Absolutely. When republicans tried to stop this from happening, Barney Frank was the most vocal advocate in congress for the lending industry practices!

[Wild Cobra]

Are you seriously comparing yourself to Einstein?

As for credentials not meaning shit . . . that's got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

So, you're saying that you know more than a Ph.D?

Your idiocy knows no bounds.
Ever hear of an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)?

That is what I am. Like Mark Twain, I have never let schooling interfere with my education!

Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts? I say those with personal motivation do better!

Formal education is far too slow for me. A waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than sit in boring classes.

[peewee's lovechild]

There are references on the graph to show you the sources of the information so people can look up the research.

Did they not teach you that in 3rd grade science class?

Link to the source please.

[peewee's lovechild]

I guess you have neither read, or understand the numerous thing I posted about global warming in the Political Forum then.

I don't have to say I know more than you on the subject. It's flat out obvious!

Is that because you know more than Ph.Ds like Sec24?

You're awesome!

[balli]

Ever hear of an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)?

That is what I am. Like Mark Twain, I have never let schooling interfere with my education!

Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts? I say those with personal motivation do better!

Formal education is far too slow for me. A waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than sit in boring classes.

:rolleyes x 30 million

[peewee's lovechild]

How can the Bushies spin that when democrats controlled congress since January 2007?

Isn't you libtards throwing blame on the republicans when the republicans couldn't to shit about it?

Out of 8 years, the Dems controlled for 2.
And, there was already an economic mess by the time they took control.

So, the Republicans fucked this country over for the better part of a decade.

It's simple math, but Bushies like you would never understand something that simple.

[peewee's lovechild]

Ever hear of an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)?

That is what I am. Like Mark Twain, I have never let schooling interfere with my education!

Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts? I say those with personal motivation do better!

Formal education is far too slow for me. A waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than sit in boring classes.

You are nothing like Mark Twain.

Nothing.

You're a loser who posts bombastic opinions on an internet forum.
That's all you are.

And, you show your idiocy so well most of the time.

If you were anything like Twain, anything at all, you would be leading a more productive life and providing solutions.

You do neither.

All this is completely laughable.

One of you douchebags likens himself to Einstein and the other to Mark Twain.

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot.

I should say that you are "obtuse" so I can make myself sound smart.

[Dr. Gonzo]

You are nothing like Mark Twain.

Nothing.

You're a loser who posts bombastic opinions on an internet forum.
That's all you are.

And, you show your idiocy so well most of the time.

If you were anything like Twain, anything at all, you would be leading a more productive life and providing solutions.

You do neither.

Pot meet kettle.

[Wild Cobra]

Typical liberal hate-speech when the facts become illusive:


You are nothing like Mark Twain.

Nothing.

You're a loser who posts bombastic opinions on an internet forum.
That's all you are.

And, you show your idiocy so well most of the time.

If you were anything like Twain, anything at all, you would be leading a more productive life and providing solutions.

You do neither.

All this is completely laughable.

One of you douchebags likens himself to Einstein and the other to Mark Twain.

Jesus Christ, you're a fucking idiot.

I should say that you are "obtuse" so I can make myself sound smart.

[peewee's lovechild]

Isn't you libtards throwing blame on the republicans when the republicans couldn't to shit about it?


I guess you have neither read, or understand the numerous thing I posted about global warming in the Political Forum then.



I have never let schooling interfere with my education!


Well, that's apparent.



Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts?




Looks like Cobra's not kidding about not liking the classroom.

I wonder what Mark Twain has to say about little Cobra's grammar.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Oh snap! Grammar smack!

[peewee's lovechild]

Pot meet kettle.

I've never denied I'm a loser with way too much time on my hands.

I've also never claimed that I'm equal to Einstein and Twain.

[peewee's lovechild]

Oh snap! Grammar smack!

That's right, bitch!!!

That's how I roll.

All I know is that someone who claims to be Twain's equal should at the very least have good grammar.

[ClingingMars]

That's already been explained to him countless times. He still just doesn't get it.

indeed. it's like talking to a wall.

[peewee's lovechild]

indeed. it's like talking to a wall.

This just proves how retarded you two are.

I think I've posted once since the election.

Nobody had told me anything about McCain and what not.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I love all you dumbass liberals who think you are smart, yet can't even see this scam owning all of you morons. 99% on this forum will shrug off this comment, but maybe one will finally question The Goracle.

THE GOVERNMENT IS USING YOUR GOOD INTENTIONS TO GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER BUSINESS & CITIZENS. YOU GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THEY ARE LINING THEIR POCKETS OFF THE SCAM. Yet many of you will support THEM to the end. Why.

So fucking easy to see from the start. Some will never get it. I'd throw up a laughter smiley, but the shit isn't really funny anymore. :bang

No, it's not. Your ignorance is pathetic.

Can you please stop conflating science and politics - the politics of climate change have absolutely NOTHING to do with the science.

Once again, your argument makes no sense - oil and coal are worth trillions of dollars annually, CO2 reduction measures are in the billions ie. 1000+ times less money. Also, the easiest way to cut your ecological footprint (the damage we do to the environment extends far beyond CO2) is to consume smarter and consume less, which will SAVE YOU MONEY.


Einstein was a patent clerk.

Credentials don't mean shit when there isn't any proof of AGW. (1) They have proof of warming which doesn't surprise anyone who looks at the geologic record. (3)

They have no proof of a link between CO2 rising and it warming up. (2) They have a 100 year trend with hot times in the middle and end and an almost constant rise in CO2 levels...

Meanwhile, I can post a 600 million year trend of atmospheric CO2 and no one wants to talk about it because it even further fucks up their argument of CO2 being a climate driver. (3)

(1) Isn't any proof huh? What about disappearing glaciers, record artic and antartic ice melts, changing temperature and rainfall regimes measured in hundreds of locations across the globe, a higher frequency of extreme weather events, changes to the behaviour of the great conveyor belt, changing plant flowering and species migration time... all of these occurances have been documented multiple times in published science and are clear evidence of the changing climate. And don't give me the old "natural variation" bugbear - of course climate varies naturally, but major changes such as glacial-interglacial take 3-5000 years, which is about 30-50 times SLOWER than the rate of change we are currently observing.

(2) From realclimate, which is staffed by PhD climatologists from all over the globe and allows unmoderated debate of all topics:

"This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

(3) Oh, and why you are looking at 600 million years I wouldn't know. The geology and biology of the planet has changed massively over 600 million years - Pangaea, the supercontinent, only started to seperate 200 million years ago - so of course the atmosphere and climate system has been radically different to what we see today. Let's confine ourselves to the last 600,000 years for the moment:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11659/dn11659-2_738.jpg

That comes from a new scientist article that explains the same thing as the real climate article above:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Hmmmmm. Looks like a pretty strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature to me.

Finally, please explain this to me:

(1) the global carbon cycle has X quantity of carbon in it, exchanging between atmosphere, oceans, terrestrial plants and soils in an equilibrium system (undisputed);
(2) humans are dumping Y quantity of carbon (eqivalent to 2-3ppm/yr of atmospheric carbon) that has been out of the carbon cycle (stored underground as coal/oil for hundreds of millions of years) into the modern carbon cycle, and in total have changed the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (and dissolved oceanic CO2) by about 35% in a century (undisputed);
(3) atmospheric CO2 absorbs radiation and re-radiates it at wavelengths that cannot escape the atmosphere (undisputed);
(4) according to you, 1/3 more CO2 in the atmophere will not lead to an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere!?!? How is that possible? Basic physics makes a mockery of what you are saying. WHERE IS THE EXCESS HEAT GOING??????????

You want to debate the science, you'd better understand it, because I do.

You naysayers, you deniers, most of whom have NOT read the science and clearly do not understand it, are akin the Church in the Middle Ages: "no, no the earth is flat and your astronomy is witchcraft". Stop conflating politicians and political parties you don't like with science that is solid as a rock, and stop mixing up the idea that this is all a way to get money out of your pocket with the reality that, as with the credit crisis, humanity is living far beyond its means in environmental terms. In short, WAKE THE FUCK UP.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

PS It is a fucking embarrassment that you guys are more worried about a few dollars in your pocket than the pollution you cause (of all kinds, not just CO2). Consumption has consequences, especially when there are 7 billion humans on the planet DOUBLING their consumption of energy every 20 years (not to mention water, oil, coal, metals, etc.), but you're more concerned that someone is trying to bilk you. In taking that stand, you are essentially calling hundreds of thousands of scientists who are working on this phenomon frauds who are only interested in giving evidence to people who want to rob you, and you should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. You are the frauds, not the climate scientists.

[Sec24Row7]

Ruff why was there 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in the ordovician when we were in an ice age?

You can try to push off an 800 year lag as inconsequential (and let me just say.. .that before you had to admit one existed CO2 was your "driver" the whole way through) but you can't get around 4.5% CO2 in the atmosphere and it being as cool or cooler than it is now.

You are talking semantics with your "35%" increase... 35% increase to what? .4%!!! less than 10 times what it was in the ordovician.

[ClingingMars]

This just proves how retarded you two are.

I think I've posted once since the election.

Nobody had told me anything about McCain and what not.

i think what myself and Cobra were referring to is liberals in general.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ruff why was there 4500 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere in the ordovician when we were in an ice age?

You can try to push off an 800 year lag as inconsequential (and let me just say.. .that before you had to admit one existed CO2 was your "driver" the whole way through) but you can't get around 4.5% CO2 in the atmosphere and it being as cool or cooler than it is now.

You are talking semantics with your "35%" increase... 35% increase to what? .4%!!! less than 10 times what it was in the ordovician.

Because the Ordovician period was roughly 450 MILLION years ago and the planet was completely different - its albedo was different, its biology was different, its paleogeography was different, its geology was different, its orbit was (subtely) different, its climatic cycles were different. Ordovician earth bore little resemblance to modern earth, so why use it for comparison when you can use far more reliable records from the last 1 million years? Also, the temperature and CO2 estimates you refer to have huge error components (the light yellow shading is the error margin inherent in the models):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Comparing the earth in the Ordovician period to today is like comparing apples to beach balls - there is very little resemblance aside from the fact that they are both round - so basing your argument on that shows just how little you have considered the subject, or just how willing you are to twist the facts to meet your beliefs. Meanwhile, you are discussing something based on computer modelling, whereas I'm discussing the actual physical realities being observed by ecologists, climatologists, geologists, etc in the real world. I am less certain about any kind of modelling than I am about observed physical data, so lets stick to that.

How about you explain to me the correlation over the last 600,000 years (ie. a relevant geological timeframe), which clearly shows CO2 as an amplifier and a key component in climate change between glacial and interglacial periods? And to answer your assertion, yes, in geological time 800 years is a drop in the ocean, but the broader point there is that scientists acknowledge that natural climate oscillations are generally initiated by other events, which lead to an increase in CO2/CH4 conc. (probably due to deep ocean cycling and clathrate melting respectively), which then takes over and changes the climate markedly. We humans are bypassing the initiating phase of that cycle by artificially pump-priming the atmosphere with CO2 from fossil fuels, so we don't need to refer to the initiating phase. Also, the natural glacial-interglacial transition occurs at rates 10-100x slower (depending on whether you measure at the poles or the equator) than what we are currently observing... why would that be? Because this is NOT a natural cycle event.

My point about the 35% increase in a century was not semantic at all, it was that if you change any component in a system by 35% you are going to get changes to that system, and usually drastic changes. The fact that CO2 makes up about 0.0385% of the atmosphere is as irrelevant as nitrogen making up 78.08%. Before the marked rise in CO2 concentration, let's say that Y quantity of heat was being trapped by the approximately 0.0250% of CO2 in the air - is that suddenly irrelevant? No. So now we have Yx1.35 heat being trapped by the 0.0385% atmospheric CO2 - that is simple physics and arithmatic. Where is that extra heat disappearing to??? You still haven't explained to me where all of the extra heat that is being trapped by the elevated CO2 concentration is mysteriously disappearing to. The fact is it's not disappearing - it's being trapped within the system and very quickly (in geological time) heating the earth.

Ocean temperatures are rising, as is oceanic acidity (once again, scientifically documented facts), which shows that the oceans are absorbing lots of CO2 and heat right now. However their ability to buffer the tremendous quantites of CO2 artificially entering the carbon cycle, and the extra heat generated by that CO2, will reach a threshold, and then atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase even more quickly. The most salient example of this is in my part of the world is at the Great Barrier Reef, which is disappearing so fast due to the warming ocean that it will be gone in 25 years.

Why are you under the impression that we can dump massive quantities of shit into the planet's atmosphere, water and earth without any consequences? Head in the sand much?

[peewee's lovechild]

I still haven't gotten a link to that pretty little graph.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

I still haven't gotten a link to that pretty little, TOTALLY SPURIOUS AND IRRELEVANT graph.

Fixed.

You know what I really hate - people who, when proven wrong by the weight of evidence, stick to their beliefs. Prove me wrong using well-founded factual evidence and I will change my opinion because I have an open mind and base my opinions on reason. I have changed my mind on many things when shown solid evidence that contradicts what I had previously thought. More people should be like that.

[peewee's lovechild]

Fixed.

You know what I really hate - people who, when proven wrong by the weight of evidence, stick to their beliefs. Prove me wrong using well-founded factual evidence and I will change my opinion because I have an open mind and base my opinions on reason. I have changed my mind on many things when shown solid evidence that contradicts what I had previously thought. More people should be like that.

I hate when people claim to be equal to Einstein or Twain.

But, yea, these guys are just republican hacks spewing right wing bullshit, even when common sense dictates the opposite.

[RandomGuy]

Ever hear of an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)?

That is what I am. Like Mark Twain, I have never let schooling interfere with my education!

Why is someone who is taught and test well, better than someone who through personal desire, seeks out facts? I say those with personal motivation do better!

Formal education is far too slow for me. A waste of time. I have better things to do with my time than sit in boring classes.

How do you know you didn't miss something?

I hope you aren't trying your hand at surgery. "Don't worry I read a book on this..." eek.

There is a value to higher education and being taught a subject by someone who has studied the topic for 8+ years.

[RandomGuy]

Einstein was a patent clerk.

Credentials don't mean shit when there isn't any proof of AGW. They have proof of warming which doesn't surprise anyone who looks at the geologic record.

They have no proof of a link between CO2 rising and it warming up. They have a 100 year trend with hot times in the middle and end and an almost constant rise in CO2 levels...

Meanwhile, I can post a 600 million year trend of atmospheric CO2 and no one wants to talk about it because it even further fucks up their argument of CO2 being a climate driver.

Einstein was a genius who entered a field that was essentially in its infancy.

It is a bit harder to break into the field of physics today by publishing something new.

Not that there is anything wrong with Einstein learning by himself, but there is a great deal more to the human knowledge base in 2009 than in 1909.

[RandomGuy]

Typical liberal hate-speech when the facts become illusive:


Typical conservative fact dodging when someone points out the holes in your logic.

If all else fails argue that minor semantics are far more important than common sense meaning.

[RandomGuy]

(3) Oh, and why you are looking at 600 million years I wouldn't know. The geology and biology of the planet has changed massively over 600 million years - Pangaea, the supercontinent, only started to seperate 200 million years ago - so of course the atmosphere and climate system has been radically different to what we see today.

That kind of occurred to me as well. From what I am given to understand our present climate is affected in no small part due to ocean currents that are strongly affected by the placement of the continents.

Move the continents, and you change those patterns. That makes comparing climate periods a bit more problematic.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

That kind of occurred to me as well. From what I am given to understand our present climate is affected in no small part due to ocean currents that are strongly affected by the placement of the continents.

Move the continents, and you change those patterns. That makes comparing climate periods a bit more problematic.

Exactly. You cannot compare earth in the Ordovician to today, and as I've clearly illustrated, CO2 and temperature correlate very closely in the modern age. It's not just about ocean currents, but also the biota of the planet (which largely affects the carbon cycle), its albedo, the activity of volcanoes (they artificially cool the earth by spewing aerosols into the upper atmosphere which reflect heat back into space), etc. etc. All of these things were vastly different in the Ordovician.

See, this is what happens when you get amateurs pulling together a few disparate facts and making up their own story - training in a discipline, whatever it is, enables you to see the holes in what might seem to make sense to a layman. That is not to say that there isn't value in self-learning, but for most people understanding a discipline from first principles will improve their insight.

[peewee's lovechild]

I still haven't gotten a link to that guys pretty little graph.

[RandomGuy]

Exactly. You cannot compare earth in the Ordovician to today, and as I've clearly illustrated, CO2 and temperature correlate very closely in the modern age. It's not just about ocean currents, but also the biota of the planet (which largely affects the carbon cycle), its albedo, the activity of volcanoes (they artificially cool the earth by spewing aerosols into the upper atmosphere which reflect heat back into space), etc. etc. All of these things were vastly different in the Ordovician.

See, this is what happens when you get amateurs pulling together a few disparate facts and making up their own story - training in a discipline, whatever it is, enables you to see the holes in what might seem to make sense to a layman. That is not to say that there isn't value in self-learning, but for most people understanding a discipline from first principles will improve their insight.

Honestly, much of the skeptic movement reminds me both in emotional tenor and intellectual rigor of the 9-11 truth movement.

Rename this thread "The Amazing Story Behind the Goverment's 9-11 Scam" and change a few terms and it gets kinda similar.

You get a devoted "truther" with a chip on his shoulder and perfectly convinced that the "official" story is for suckers, and only he and people who think like him are smart enough to see through the "official story".

If you think the "official story" sounds fairly reasonable and seems to be supported by evidence and solid science, you are accused of being a "sheeple" and a sucker.

Along the way, you are treated with copied and pasted stuff from clearinghouse websites devoted to this.

Invariably when you start poking too closely, the truth that there is very probably some distortion and pseudoscience underlying a lot of it.

The truthers have those who barely understand what they read on the clearinghouse websites and come onto web forums and gamely try to prove their point.

If you dare to question the presented evidence, you need to "do your research", because you obviously aren't smart enough to argue the point. How dare you disagree with the emotionally appealing idea they are presenting, you must simply be a biased hack/shill.

Both groups like to think of themselves as "heroes" fighting against the evil conspiracy who are oppressing them.

Sound familiar?

[ClingingMars]

Honestly, much of the skeptic movement reminds me both in emotional tenor and intellectual rigor of the 9-11 truth movement.

Rename this thread "The Amazing Story Behind the Goverment's 9-11 Scam" and change a few terms and it gets kinda similar.

You get a devoted "truther" with a chip on his shoulder and perfectly convinced that the "official" story is for suckers, and only he and people who think like him are smart enough to see through the "official story".

If you think the "official story" sounds fairly reasonable and seems to be supported by evidence and solid science, you are accused of being a "sheeple" and a sucker.

Along the way, you are treated with copied and pasted stuff from clearinghouse websites devoted to this.

Invariably when you start poking too closely, the truth that there is very probably some distortion and pseudoscience underlying a lot of it.

The truthers have those who barely understand what they read on the clearinghouse websites and come onto web forums and gamely try to prove their point.

If you dare to question the presented evidence, you need to "do your research", because you obviously aren't smart enough to argue the point. How dare you disagree with the emotionally appealing idea they are presenting, you must simply be a biased hack/shill.

Both groups like to think of themselves as "heroes" fighting against the evil conspiracy who are oppressing them.

Sound familiar?

:lmao to compare skeptics of a scientific theory to conspiracy theorists.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao to compare skeptics of a scientific theory to conspiracy theorists.

:lmao to guys who post one line and expect people to give a shit about what they say.

[RandomGuy]

video is old as dirt

"there might be aliens, get ready!1"

Please provide links to peer-reviewed scientific articles concerning alien invasions.

If you can't do that, then the comparison is simply yet another emotional appeal that sacrifices sound logic to your emotionally appealing "rebelness" in rejecting science you don't understand offhand.

I am glad you want to feel like you are one of the cool kids, but your feelings don't help us formulate sound policy do they?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

:lmao to compare skeptics of a scientific theory to conspiracy theorists.

Um, no. The article in the OP of this thread did not in any way challenge the science - its primary thesis was a political- and science funding-based conspiracy, absurd in the face of the trillions of dollars going to Big Coal/Oil every year. The author did not address the science whatsover. I pulled the article apart to demonstrate this, and then explained some of the science to you but you've ignored that.

Please, debate the science I have presented on scientific terms, not political ones. At the moment you seem incapable of separating the two.

[RandomGuy]

Never did get a link to any of that peer-reviewed science I asked for.

I guess that means that the analogy was misleading after all. Color me unsurprised.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Never did get a link to any of that peer-reviewed science I asked for.

I guess that means that the analogy was misleading after all. Color me unsurprised.

No disputation of any of the science I proffered either. Surprise, surprise. Would that be because the science is rock solid, and the evidence is all around us? I think so.

EGW theory predicts a higher frequency of extreme weather events, and Australia has had two firestorms in the last 5 years that have re-written the textbooks, unlike anything in the recorded history of this country. Can those events alone prove the theory? No, not at all. But they are exactly the kind of thing predicted by it, as is the increased incidence of extreme cyclones, the unprecedented ice melts, extreme flooding, etc.

[tlongII]

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html