Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[RandomGuy]

Just hoiw daft are yolu?

I say there is no evidence that greenhouse gasses are causing "these changes" and you change it to "warming." By "these changes" I was referring to the norther ice meant, not temperature changes. Ice can melt without an increasing its surrounding temperature...

I have specified the changing ice albedo due to aerosols, and specifically soot.

I guess you have no concept what a change of a 0.9 albedo to a 0.7 albedo does to ice... par for the course...

How can you not understand such a simple concept?

So I didn't distort your views about a conspiracy of scientists. Got it.

[RandomGuy]

That you are referring to a blog. Letting them tell you what to believe.

It's like talking about an apple, but showing a picture of an orange.

Now the jist of the blog may be correct, but it is stupid to rely on what a blogger says, then repeat it, link it, without verifying it factually.

That is... unless you like being a dumb parrot... repeating what someone says without understanding it...

So, you don't know what your post meant?

[Winehole23]

shot in the dark works for WC. he thinks he killed everybody with it.

[Winehole23]

what's your hypothesis, WC?

what accounts for the dramatic warming trend?

solar forcing? soot? be specific if you can.

[Winehole23]

do you rule out anthropogenic contributions?

if so, why do you do so?

[Wild Cobra]

what's your hypothesis, WC?

what accounts for the dramatic warming trend?

solar forcing? soot? be specific if you can.

If I take the time to outline it for the umpteenth millionth time, will you remember, or forget like before?

[Wild Cobra]

do you rule out anthropogenic contributions?

if so, why do you do so?

Not at all. We are responsible for some significant changes.

Why do you so conveniently forget what I have said before?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If I take the time to outline it for the umpteenth millionth time, will you remember, or forget like before?

We don't forget. He clearly doesn't because he remembers soot and the sun too. Your behavior demonstrates your shame.

You put me on ignore and then when that didn't stop me you finally stopped. Now you act like Scientologists when you ask them about Xanu.

[Winehole23]

Not at all. We are responsible for some significant changes.

Why do you so conveniently forget what I have said before?make your case. arguments aren't won by hand-waving and name calling.

[Wild Cobra]

make your case. arguments aren't won by hand-waving and name calling.

I'm no going to bother. I have explained several aspects several times. Why should I believe you will absorb it this time, when you haven't before. Then you lie about my position, hence... the name calling.

I have lost count how many times you blatantly misrepresented what said, or pretended I never have.

Why should this be any different?

I have made my case several times in the past. You simply don't care, and I don't have the time to waste right now.

[Wild Cobra]

Your behavior demonstrates your shame.

You put me on ignore and then when that didn't stop me you finally stopped. Now you act like Scientologists when you ask them about Xanu.

LOL...

You're a super troll and a master-baiter... Really one to talk... I'm not ashamed on my better reasoning skills.

I sometimes don't have the patients to deal with your combination of ignorance, arrogance, and flamebaiting... Hence the IGNORE function used.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

You're a super troll and a master-baiter... Really one to talk... I'm not ashamed on my better reasoning skills.

I sometimes don't have the patients to deal with your combination of ignorance, arrogance, and flamebaiting... Hence the IGNORE function used.

Yup just like when you ask about Xanu. We both know I will gladly argue on merit. It's just many of your positions are so mind numbingly stupid.

Why don't you discuss this gem: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87766-reaction-of-earth-to-changes-in-total-solar-irradiance/page-2

50 year latency? More of your ocean current wishful thinking. As if the ENSO cycle is not well understood.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, Gavin Schmidt has finally lost it. He's become Chicken Little, and thinks the Sky is Falling!



Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told National Observer. "So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”


link: The sky is literally falling because of climate change, says top NASA scientist (http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/24/news/sky-literally-falling-because-climate-change-says-top-nasa-scientist)

[spurraider21]

Well, Gavin Schmidt has finally lost it. He's become Chicken Little, and thinks the Sky is Falling!


Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told National Observer. "So if you’re about 80 kilometres up, you actually are seeing the sky falling. It’s going down by a number of kilometres.”


link: The sky is literally falling because of climate change, says top NASA scientist (http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/10/24/news/sky-literally-falling-because-climate-change-says-top-nasa-scientist)
- did he claim this was apocalyptic or catastrophic? if not, why do you think he has lost it?

- do you disagree that CO2 cools the stratosphere? if so, please show the research/evidence that backs that claim.

- do you disagree that a cooling atmosphere will have a shrinking effect? if so, please cite the research/evidence that backs that claim

[Wild Cobra]

- did he claim this was apocalyptic or catastrophic? if not, why do you think he has lost it?

Are you agreeing there is no cause for alarm?



- do you disagree that CO2 cools the stratosphere? if so, please show the research/evidence that backs that claim.

- do you disagree that a cooling atmosphere will have a shrinking effect? if so, please cite the research/evidence that backs that claim

If the total heat content of the earth is increasing, then the troposphere below it will expand more than the stratosphere shrinks.

They sky shouldn't be falling! Not unless the reality is global cooling.

[spurraider21]

Are you agreeing there is no cause for alarm?
Regarding the specific symptom of a shrinking stratosphere? I'm not knowledgeable enough on the issue but the article you posted didn't seem to imply it. Just seems like you built yourself a nice strawman, I don't think the article claimed the stratosphere shrink is a cause for alarm, specifically.



If the total heat content of the earth is increasing, then the troposphere below it will expand more than the stratosphere shrinks.
You could very well be right. Can you back this up with evidence? Or am I just taking your word for it? The troposphere is roughly 5-10 miles high and the stratosphere reaches about 30. So can you demonstrate evidence that these will completely offset as you claim?

[Th'Pusher]

Sarkozy proposes carbon tax on US goods if Donald scraps Paris climate pact.

http://en.rfi.fr/france/2016114-sarkozy-proposes-carbon-tax-us-goods-if-trump-scraps-paris-climate-pact?

[SnakeBoy]

what's your hypothesis, WC?

what accounts for the dramatic warming trend?

solar forcing? soot? be specific if you can.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550x330.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550x330.gif

What warms the oceans and fuels the ocean circulation?

[spurraider21]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2-550x330.gifand... this graph still shows the predicted 0.1 degree per decade warmth even when you factor out the el nino peaks. we all know 1998 was an incredibly strong el nino, so lets disregard that peak, for example. 1999-2001 still hovered around the 0 mark. and then you look at 2014-2015 before the el nino peak there and its somewhere around 0.15. the shorter window you look at, the more those big peaks and valleys are going to skew numbers. its no surprise that people on your side of the fence always start the short term analysis exactly from 1998, a really strong el nino period. why didn't you start from 1995? or 1993? you started from an abnormally high 1998 because it paints a convenient picture. and then if you take a larger sample size... 30 years, 50 years, 100 years, the trend is more pronounced and much less susceptible to el nino/la nina periods

[SnakeBoy]

and...

and...my post had nothing to do with the long term warming trend. I posted the graph in reply to Winehole's question as to what could account for the dramatic warming trend of the last two years (I assume that is what he meant since that was the topic of his link). Last year I posted in some thread that this year would likely be warmer than last, I didn't know that because I am psychic.

[SnakeBoy]

and... this graph still shows the predicted 0.1 degree per decade warmth even when you factor out the el nino peaks. we all know 1998 was an incredibly strong el nino, so lets disregard that peak, for example.

No, if you want to disregard that peak then you should disregard this peak. Both follow a very strong El Nino.

Seriously, freaking out over a peak warm year is no different than my side (supposedly) saying lol global warming when it's a cooler year.

[spurraider21]

No, if you want to disregard that peak then you should disregard this peak. Both follow a very strong El Nino.

Seriously, freaking out over a peak warm year is no different than my side (supposedly) saying lol global warming when it's a cooler year.yes. disregard the 2015-2016 el nino peak. look at 2012, 2013, 2014, and early 2015... well before the el nino peak. it's still indicative of a warming trend when going back to the 1999-2000 time period, and is still very consistent with the prediction of 0.1 degrees per decade

[SnakeBoy]

yes

:lol so you agree with me but you still want to argue about something

[spurraider21]

:lol so you agree with me but you still want to argue about somethingi agree that the 2015-2016 el nino peak skews the numbers, so that peak should be disregarded. i disagree that disregarding that peak means we suddenly lose the warming trend.

[SnakeBoy]

i agree that the 2015-2016 el nino peak skews the numbers, so that peak should be disregarded. i disagree that disregarding that peak means we suddenly lose the warming trend.

Where the fuck did I say that?

[spurraider21]

Where the fuck did I say that?in my first post on this matter, i specifically agreed about the 2015-2016 el nino peak skewing the results, and noted that the trend is still there.

when you replied, i assumed you disagreed with that point. my bad. when i see the temperature charts that all conveniently start in 1998, i jump to conclusions :lol

[SnakeBoy]

in my first post on this matter, i specifically agreed about the 2015-2016 el nino peak skewing the results, and noted that the trend is still there.

when you replied, i assumed you disagreed with that point. my bad. when i see the temperature charts that all conveniently start in 1998, i jump to conclusions :lol

The position of "my side" is and has been since I've been posting on this forum is that these debates over temperature graphs, or if a specific weather event is due to global warming are stupid as fuck.

I'm simple minded. That's what I've been told repeatedly by some posters. So with my simple mind I look at it like this...

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?...answer YES
Is atmospheric CO2 increasing?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) causing it?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) in immediate danger because of this?...answer NO
So what is a realistic long term solution to the problem?...answer ????????? this is where it gets difficult

[spurraider21]

The position of "my side" is and has been since I've been posting on this forum is that these debates over temperature graphs, or if a specific weather event is due to global warming are stupid as fuck.

I'm simple minded. That's what I've been told repeatedly by some posters. So with my simple mind I look at it like this...

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?...answer YES
Is atmospheric CO2 increasing?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) causing it?...answer YES
Are we (mankind) in immediate danger because of this?...answer NO
So what is a realistic long term solution to the problem?...answer ????????? this is where it gets difficultwhat qualifies as immediate danger, though? my dads in his 50's and he doesn't give any shits about effects of climate change because by the time we have significant issues he'll probably be dead or too old to be effected. so his solution? fuck it, drill.

it's like flossing. dentists tell you that if you dont floss, your teeth will get fucked up. you dont floss for a few weeks. there aren't immediate effects. so does that mean you should tell the dentist to fuck off and continue not to floss until you actually have the negative effect? by then it's too late. in the environmental issue, its the younger generations that will be stuck with the tooth decay because the older generation never felt the ramifications of not flossing

as for long term solutions... i think its fairly obvious that taking steps to reduce our impact on co2 levels should be a priority, and pointing a finger at china and saying "they're polluting a lot, so what difference does it make what we do" isn't solving anything either. but the free market isn't going to cut CO2 emissions... not by a longshot

[boutons_deux]

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/the-north-pole-is-an-insane-36-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.7528b5f59521

[SpursforSix]

The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/17/the-north-pole-is-an-insane-36-degrees-warmer-than-normal-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.7528b5f59521

I bet you've never stopped posting.

[boutons_deux]

I bet you've never stopped posting.

You brain is dumber than a hockey puck.

[SpursforSix]

You brain is dumber than a hockey puck.

Your mom has baboon vagina.

[boutons_deux]

At a time when sea ice should be expanding, it’s actually shrinking

The Arctic is heading into the dead of winter, and across a vast swath of territory, the polar night has descended, with 24 hours of darkness each day.

This is when temperatures should be plunging, and sea ice should be expanding rapidly.

Instead, temperatures are soaring, and sea ice is actually shrinking.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2016/11/20/something-really-crazy-is-happening-in-the-arctic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20DiscoverMag%20%28Discover%2 0Magazine%29#.WDJrMrIrKpo

The planet is fucked and unfuckable.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your mom has baboon vagina.

:lmao

[spurraider21]

the greenland shelf has been losing something like 300 billion tons per year recently... this isn't particularly surprising

[pgardn]

First phase: denial
Second phase: yes, but we have nothing to do with it
Third phase: acceptance but we can't stop this change
Fourth phase: beneficial side effects

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

[spurraider21]

:lol...

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research)



Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

:lol


Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating”. “It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted."

“We live on planet Earth and there is much to discover, and it is essential to track and monitor many things from space. Information on planet Earth and its atmosphere and oceans is essential for our way of life. Space (https://www.theguardian.com/science/space) research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, said Nasa has a “critical and unique role” in observing Earth and climate change.

“Without the support of Nasa, not only the US but the entire world would be taking a hard hit when it comes to understanding the behavior of our climate and the threats posed by human-caused climate change,” he said.

“It would be a blatantly political move, and would indicate the president-elect’s willingness to pander to the very same lobbyists and corporate interest groups he derided throughout the campaign.”

:lol... after YEARS of "we dont know enough about climate change" the decision is to stop learning more about it? :lmao...

[Wild Cobra]

:lol...

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research)




:lol



:lol... after YEARS of "we dont know enough about climate change" the decision is to stop learning more about it? :lmao...

NASA doesn't need to spend money doing what other agencies have money for. They need to focus on their primary mission.

[spurraider21]

NASA doesn't need to spend money doing what other agencies have money for. They need to focus on their primary mission.if anything we need more research on climate change to appease the "we dont have enough information" camp

and its not like cutting nasa's climate research funding is going to magically increase their funding in other areas anyway. if they're so serious about pushing space exploration, why not just increase nasa's funding? and dont tell me our inefficient government that spends way too much money cant muster up more for nasa if they really wanted to

its a joke of the policy that addresses climate change research like a child who covers his ears and says "LA LA LA i cant hear you LA LA LA"

and lmao at the executive branch arbitrarily (read: conveniently) determining what is "solid science" and what is "politicized science"

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol...

Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science' (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research)



The Guardian sure took a lot of liberty with that headline seeing as they don't have a single quote from Trump stating that.

[spurraider21]

The Guardian sure took a lot of liberty with that headline seeing as they don't have a single quote from Trump stating that.
They quoted Bob walker, one of his advisors

[TheSanityAnnex]

They quoted Bob walker, one of his advisors
That's my point. A campaign advisor saying that is not Trump saying that.

[boutons_deux]

That's my point. A campaign advisor saying that is not Trump saying that.

BigCarbon pays the Repugs to fuck up govt.

Repugs will defund NASA, IRS, EPA, DoE, SEC, etc.

Repugs plan to fuck up govt everywhere, everyway they can.

St Ronnie the diseased Useful Idiot announced the crystal clear VRWC ideology: "Government IS the problem"

[CosmicCowboy]

BigCarbon pays the Repugs to fuck up govt.

Repugs will defund NASA, IRS, EPA, DoE, SEC, etc.

Repugs plan to fuck up govt everywhere, everyway they can.

St Ronnie the diseased Useful Idiot announced the crystal clear VRWC ideology: "Government IS the problem"

Overgrown federal government IS the problem.

[Wild Cobra]

Overgrown federal government IS the problem.

Yep.

It doesn't matter if it is tax and spend, or borrow and spend.

Both parties are destroying this nation.

Think about it people, they are buying your vote with everybody's money!

Everyone that worries about these same hot button issues election to election, and vote based on them... You are all at fault.

[spurraider21]

lol deflecting from the issue of the science

[Wild Cobra]

lol deflecting from the issue of the science

From Spurs Talk?

Science?

This group of racial and political pundits?

Are you joking?

[boutons_deux]

San Antonio TX old white inherited wealth guy in charge of science

Turns out that Breitbart article the House Science Committee tweeted out is a con job (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/5/1607478/-Turns-out-that-Breitbart-article-the-House-Science-Committee-tweeted-out-is-a-con-job)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/253530/story_image/GettyImages-164048006.jpg?1463759037

Texas Republican Lamar Smith is the oxymoronic Chairman of the House Science Committee. He spends a lot of energy trying to protect ExxonMobil (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/30/1576364/-Republican-science-chairman-Rep-Lamar-Smith-is-now-going-after-the-SEC-to-protect-ExxonMobil). The other day his committee’s official government Twitter account tweeted out this.

Sci,Space,&Tech Cmte (https://twitter.com/HouseScience)
(https://twitter.com/HouseScience)✔@HouseScience (https://twitter.com/HouseScience)

.@BreitbartNews (https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews): Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists http://bit.ly/2gINZNf (https://t.co/uLUPW4o93V)
1:12 PM - 1 Dec 2016 (https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688)
https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBg6aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJyZWl0YmFydC5jb2 0vbWVkaWEvMjAxNi8xMS9mcmVlemluZy1jb2xkLnBuZxTABxTA BxwU8AEU8AEAABYAEgA&s=LBHmzdJqUNrh8BTe5OZof2YLN-BLuSsDHmtJqQNaFW0

(https://t.co/uLUPW4o93V)
Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists

(https://t.co/uLUPW4o93V)Land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree - the biggest and steepest fall on record. But the news has been greeted with an eerie silence.
breitbart.com

(https://t.co/uLUPW4o93V)
The Breitbart piece (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/30/global-temperatures-plunge-icy-silence-climate-alarmists/) was written by James Delingpole. Delingpole is the go-to Brit for climate denial writing at Breitbart (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/1/1606106/-House-Science-committee-tweets-link-to-Breitbart-s-most-notorious-climate-change-denier), because he writes in a faux-British sarcastic and dry style—think of him as a dumb-man’s Nick Hornsby. The fake “wit” masks the fact that Delingpole is just a liar. The quote that Delingpole bases his attack on climate scientists is an article by David Rose at the Dailymail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html) in England. Climate deniers have one argument that they conflate in varying degrees at any given time:

If the earth is getting “warmer” how come sometimes it still gets cold?


The Breitbart drivel above relies heavily on this story by David Rose. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html) David Rose’s story doesn’t actually link to the “evidence” he pretends to give and that “evidence” isn’t real. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/03/climate-change-scientists-house-panel-global-temperatures-misleading)

“They’re not serious articles,” said Adam Sobel, a Columbia University climate scientist. “They paint it as though it’s an argument between Breitbart and Buzzfeed when it’s an argument between a snarky Breitbart blogger and the entire world’s scientific community, and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.”

Sobel said the articles “grossly misinterpret” a few accurate details, for instance that El Niño and La Niña systems play a large role in single-year fluctuations. “The temperature goes up for a couple of years and we have the largest year on record, then it goes down and it reaches a level that’s still well above 20th-century historical averages,” he said. “That in no way disproves anything about the causes of the long-term temperature trends.”


The House Science Committee is really taking a page from Donald Trump by using social media to propagate lies.

However, it isn’t a new thing they are doing. Republicans love to take over government departments in order to defund and abuse those posts until no one believes in those government jobs as having any civil worth.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/5/1607478/-Turns-out-that-Breitbart-article-the-House-Science-Committee-tweeted-out-is-a-con-job?detail=email&link_id=1&can_id=4217e8eb109c68bd0c2e4143dd2d8c15&source=email-turns-out-that-breitbart-article-the-house-science-committee-tweeted-out-is-a-con-job&email_referrer=turns-out-that-breitbart-article-the-house-science-committee-tweeted-out-is-a-con-job&email_subject=turns-out-that-breitbart-article-the-house-science-committee-tweeted-out-is-a-con-job

Lamer Smith sending subpoenas to govt scientists who don't agree with BigOil's LIES.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/07/lamar_smith_broadens_his_attacks_on_noaa_scientist s.html

[spurraider21]

debate settled. climate change is a hoax meant to undermine religion and god


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqiWBhJ7kQ

[boutons_deux]

The 15 Most Ridiculous Things That Media Figures Said About Environmental Issues In 2016

1. Rush Limbaugh And Matt Drudge Peddled A Reckless Conspiracy Theory Downplaying The Threat From Hurricane Matthew.

2.Fox News Blamed The Flint Water Crisis On Climate Change Policies, "PC Stuff,” And Even Flint Residents Themselves.

3. CNN’s Alisyn Camerota Claimed Trump EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt “Hasn’t Denied Global Warming.”

4. MSNBC's Mike Barnicle: ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson "Is A Huge Green Guy.”

5. Disregarding Everything Trump Has Said And Done On The Subject, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Claimed “I Just Know” Trump Believes In Climate Science.

6. Trump Adviser Stephen Moore: Being Against Fracking “Is Like Being Against A Cure For Cancer.”

7. Stephen Moore: “We Have The Cleanest Coal In The World.”

8. Breitbart’s James Delingpole: Climate Change Is “The Greatest-Ever Conspiracy Against The Taxpayer.”

9. Fox Report On Law Gas Prices: “Put The Tesla In The Garage And Break Out The Hummer.”

10. Wall Street Journal’s Mary Kissel Instructed Viewers To “Trust” A Climate Science-Denying Fossil Fuel Front Group.

11. Fox Host Clayton Morris: Rubio's Climate Science Denial At Presidential Debate Was An "Articulate Moment.”

12. Fox Hosts Mocked Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar Speech On Climate Change: "Focus On Something Else Other Than The Weather.”

13. Fox’s Meghan McCain: "The Liberal Hysteria Over Climate Change Was So Overblown That Now People Have A Hard Time Even Believing It.”

14. Fox’s Steve Doocy: Obama’s Monument Designation Was Done To “Appease Environmental Terrorists.”

15. Fox Hosts Flipped Out About Portland Public Schools Decision To Stop Teaching Climate Denial To Children.

http://mediamatters.org/print/742876

[boutons_deux]

...

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet the most ridiculous things the left pundits say top those by a large margin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From Spurs Talk?

Science?

This group of racial and political pundits?

Are you joking?

Yeah because month long explosions in the upper atmosphere, giant tube casings from before miniaturization to present 'new tech,' assuming solar irradiation of seawater shared the same feedback dynamics as GHG, having no concept of energy storage capacities, using solubility charts to model the ocean, and thinking that the ocean currents would 'hide' warming from centuries ago all the while rejecting peer review and accepting denial blogs both categorically is how real science is done.

Hell they readjusted the soot forcing were shown it and you still repeated the same regurgitated lines.

Having you talk about the science is funny as shit so in that sense it is a joke.

[boutons_deux]

I'll bet the most ridiculous things the left pundits say top those by a large margin.

you're bet is based on what? just your imagination or actual quotes from left pundits?

[boutons_deux]

New from Kockistan

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources deletes accurate climate science from agency webpage

The site went from explaining man-made climate change to falsely claiming that the science on climate change is unsettled.

https://thinkprogress.org/wisconsin-dnr-climate-change-information-purge-d9ac20755540#.jv3ykax3q

[Wild Cobra]

you're bet is based on what? just your imagination or actual quotes from left pundits?

LOL...

When someone says "I'll bet," doesn't that indicate opinion?

[Wild Cobra]

New from Kockistan

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources deletes accurate climate science from agency webpage

The site went from explaining man-made climate change to falsely claiming that the science on climate change is unsettled.

https://thinkprogress.org/wisconsin-dnr-climate-change-information-purge-d9ac20755540#.jv3ykax3q

Sounds reasonable to me.

Maybe other states will follow their lead!

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

When someone says "I'll bet," doesn't that indicate opinion?

... and your opinions are hilariously uninformed.

[boutons_deux]

The last time the Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/

No worries, mate, Repugs will fix AGW by severely defunding NOAA and NASA, and harassing, firing all the climatologists, while permitting royalty-free resource extraction in national parks, wetlands, and killing wind and solar. See, all will be OK.

[Wild Cobra]

Another idiotic post by Shazbot:


The last time the Earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/

No worries, mate, Repugs will fix AGW by severely defunding NOAA and NASA, and harassing, firing all the climatologists, while permitting royalty-free resource extraction in national parks, wetlands, and killing wind and solar. See, all will be OK.





The republicans know AGW is real. They also know the science does not say it will be catastrophic.

[boutons_deux]

They also know the science does not say it will be catastrophic.

What real scientists say accelerating, non-stop AGW will NOT be catastrophic?

The consensus of BigCarbon Repug whores ranges widely from "hoax" to maybe but science isn't settled, all total bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

What real scientists say accelerating, non-stop AGW will NOT be catastrophic?

The consensus of BigCarbon Repug whores ranges widely from "hoax" to maybe but science isn't settled, all total bullshit.

No, but they aren't saying it will be catastrophic either.

You need to start reading the papers, and stop[ reading what the pundits say.

[spurraider21]

No, but they aren't saying it will be catastrophic either.

You need to start reading the papers, and stop[ reading what the pundits say.define catastrophic, in terms of climate change. scientists dont call it catastrophic because catastrophic isn't a scientific term

[Thread]

This is like the Russian hacking...all total bullshit. Just another revenue stream for gov't.

The motherfuckers.

[spurraider21]

This is like the Russian hacking...all total bullshit. Just another revenue stream for gov't.

The motherfuckers."I don't like it, therefore it's bullshit."

[Wild Cobra]

define catastrophic, in terms of climate change. scientists dont call it catastrophic because catastrophic isn't a scientific term

By George, I think you got it!

It is not being called catastrophic except by the pundits!

But you miss the fact that scientists can use regular words, and do.

[Thread]

"I don't like it, therefore it's bullshit."

No. It's bullshitPERIOD

[spurraider21]

No. It's bullshitPERIOD:lol... you're a child who's been told santa claus isn't real.

[spurraider21]

By George, I think you got it!

It is not being called catastrophic except by the pundits!

But you miss the fact that scientists can use regular words, and do.ok, lets not use the word catastrophics. what are the projected ramifications if we continue the trend we're on?

[Wild Cobra]

ok, lets not use the word catastrophics. what are the projected ramifications if we continue the trend we're on?

Well...

Siberia and northern Canada will become tolerable, and fantastic farm land for a growing world population.

More precipitation due to a warmer oceans means faster glacier builds and faster flows, meaning more fresh water.

More CO2 means faster plant growth, and better crop yields.

Since the daytime highs have not been globally breaking records, a warmer night means less hardship on people in the winter.

Should I continue?

[spurraider21]

Well...

Siberia and northern Canada will become tolerable, and fantastic farm land for a growing world population.

More precipitation due to a warmer oceans means faster glacier builds and faster flows, meaning more fresh water.

More CO2 means faster plant growth, and better crop yields.

Since the daytime highs have not been globally breaking records, a warmer night means less hardship on people in the winter.

Should I continue?
Wow so all the effects are positive? This is great news tbh

[Thread]

:lol... you're a child who's been told santa claus isn't real.

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

[boutons_deux]

Well...

Siberia and northern Canada will become tolerable, and fantastic farm land for a growing world population.

More precipitation due to a warmer oceans means faster glacier builds and faster flows, meaning more fresh water.

More CO2 means faster plant growth, and better crop yields.

Since the daytime highs have not been globally breaking records, a warmer night means less hardship on people in the winter.

Should I continue?

how about Miami, Galveston, New Orleans, New York, etc, etc, and 100Ms of people, if not Bs, displaced by ocean rises?

btw, by the way, severe drought, as NAFTA did, is driving Your Favorite People from south of the border, north to USA. yep, drought refugees right here in USA.

[spurraider21]

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
You think it's bullshit because you don't like the idea of it.

You tell a kid Santa is make believe, and he's going to fight you on it because he hates the idea of Santa being imaginary

[Thread]

You think it's bullshit because you don't like the idea of it.

You tell a kid Santa is make believe, and he's going to fight you on it because he hates the idea of Santa being imaginary

I ain't buyin' the hack and I ain't buyin' global warming/change. Even if you put a gun to my head. No-fuckin'-way. The global thing is to take money from us. And the hack shit is a money grab as well. Just hasn't gotten that far yet. But, it will.

[spurraider21]

I ain't buyin' the hack and I ain't buyin' global warming/change. Even if you put a gun to my head. No-fuckin'-way. The global thing is to take money from us. And the hack shit is a money grab as well. Just hasn't gotten that far yet. But, it will.
My point exactly. Like a child throwing a tantrum... "You're lying! Santa is real! I ain't buyin that he's fake"

[Thread]

My point exactly. Like a child throwing a tantrum... "You're lying! Santa is real! I ain't buyin that he's fake"

The Santa comparison is all yours. Knock yerself out.

[spurraider21]

The Santa comparison is all yours. Knock yerself out.
If you can explain how exactly it's a bullshit hoax I'm all ears. If you're just gonna say "it ain't real I'll never believe it because... liberals!" then the Santa shoe fits

[Thread]

If you can explain how exactly it's a bullshit hoax I'm all ears. If you're just gonna say "it ain't real I'll never believe it because... liberals!" then the Santa shoe fits

You're the one who invented it,,,prove it and the stupid fucking hack horseshit.

[spurraider21]

You're the one who invented it,,,prove it and the stupid fucking hack horseshit.
I didn't invent climate change theory any more than I invented plate tectonic theory or the germ theory

In an oversimplified nutshell?

1 - carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Simply a property of the compound
2 - carbon dioxide levels are one of the major drivers of global climate (along with other factors such as solar activity, wobble of the earth)
3 - since industrialization, we've been injecting way more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would have happened naturally. We can measure the amounts of artificial co2 vs natural co2 with some accuracy
4 - as predicted by scientists going back to the 50's, following the massive co2 emissions, global temperatures have been rising
5 - there are negative ramifications from these changes

The earth's climate has had billions of years of natural variations. Hot periods, ice ages. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to have an effect on it. Deforestation can happen naturally too. That doesn't mean humans never chopped down forests.

[baseline bum]

I didn't invent climate change theory any more than I invented plate tectonic theory or the germ theory

In an oversimplified nutshell?

1 - carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Simply a property of the compound
2 - carbon dioxide levels are one of the major drivers of global climate (along with other factors such as solar activity, wobble of the earth)
3 - since industrialization, we've been injecting way more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would have happened naturally. We can measure the amounts of artificial co2 vs natural co2 with some accuracy
4 - as predicted by scientists going back to the 50's, following the massive co2 emissions, global temperatures have been rising
5 - there are negative ramifications from these changes

Why do you not trust the US Republican party ahead of scientists? Why do you hate America?

[spurraider21]

Why do you not trust the US Republican party ahead of scientists? Why do you hate America?
Lost my way with jesus

[Thread]

I didn't invent climate change theory any more than I invented plate tectonic theory or the germ theory

In an oversimplified nutshell?

1 - carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Simply a property of the compound
2 - carbon dioxide levels are one of the major drivers of global climate (along with other factors such as solar activity, wobble of the earth)
3 - since industrialization, we've been injecting way more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would have happened naturally. We can measure the amounts of artificial co2 vs natural co2 with some accuracy
4 - as predicted by scientists going back to the 50's, following the massive co2 emissions, global temperatures have been rising
5 - there are negative ramifications from these changes

The earth's climate has had billions of years of natural variations. Hot periods, ice ages. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to have an effect on it. Deforestation can happen naturally too. That doesn't mean humans never chopped down forests.

GIGO

[spurraider21]

GIGOelaborate, else you're playing the santa card

[Thread]

elaborate, else you're playing the santa card

No, that is your card.

[spurraider21]

No, that is your card.Only pussies and assholes play the Santa card

[Wild Cobra]

how about Miami, Galveston, New Orleans, New York, etc, etc, and 100Ms of people, if not Bs, displaced by ocean rises?

btw, by the way, severe drought, as NAFTA did, is driving Your Favorite People from south of the border, north to USA. yep, drought refugees right here in USA.

Ocean rise is slow, and will occur anyway. We Any added warming and sheet ice melt CO2 might cause is small. The natural component will have the oceans rise anyway.

[DarrinS]

I didn't invent climate change theory any more than I invented plate tectonic theory or the germ theory


Until very recent history, plate tectonic theory wasn't accepted science. It wasn't fully embraced until the late 1960's. Just sayin.





In an oversimplified nutshell?

1 - carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Simply a property of the compound
2 - carbon dioxide levels are one of the major drivers of global climate (along with other factors such as solar activity, wobble of the earth)
3 - since industrialization, we've been injecting way more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would have happened naturally. We can measure the amounts of artificial co2 vs natural co2 with some accuracy
4 - as predicted by scientists going back to the 50's, following the massive co2 emissions, global temperatures have been rising
5 - there are negative ramifications from these changes

The earth's climate has had billions of years of natural variations. Hot periods, ice ages. That doesn't mean it's impossible for us to have an effect on it. Deforestation can happen naturally too. That doesn't mean humans never chopped down forests.

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Two percent of the atmosphere is comprised of greenhouse gases. Of that 2%, CO2 is less than 4%. Of that 4%, humans contribute less than 4%. By definition, ANYTHING humans contribute is more than would occur naturally, but "way more than would occur naturally" is a little hyperbolic.
4. True, for the most part, but about 1/3 of ALL human CO2 emissions have occurred in the last 20 years. Temperature has been fairly flat over this time period.
5. There are also some positive ramifications.

As for your last statement, those natural variations have dwarfed any human effects (so far).

[spurraider21]

Until very recent history, plate tectonic theory wasn't accepted science. It wasn't fully embraced until the late 1960's. Just sayin.
i'm aware. i hope i didnt leave the impression that plate tecntonic theory was hundreds of years old, dont think i implied that



1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Two percent of the atmosphere is comprised of greenhouse gases. Of that 2%, CO2 is less than 4%. Of that 4%, humans contribute less than 4%. By definition, ANYTHING humans contribute is more than would occur naturally, but "way more than would occur naturally" is a little hyperbolic.
4. True, for the most part, but about 1/3 of ALL human CO2 emissions have occurred in the last 20 years. Temperature has been fairly flat over this time period.
5. There are also some positive ramifications.

As for your last statement, those natural variations have dwarfed any human effects (so far).1 and 2 are agreed.

3) you bring up that the greenhouse gases make up a small percent of the atmosphere and that co2 is a small percent of greenhouse gases. agreed on both counts. but are you implying that because something is small, it can't have a big effect? so CO2 makes up of 4% of 2%, which is .08%. accurate figure. yet that small 0.08% of the atmospehere is responsible and necessary for all plant life on earth, which is therefore responsible for all animal life on earth. this notion that something very small can't have a big effect is a "common sense" argument that flies directly in the face of reality. there are drugs that are lethal at smaller percentages than that.

water vapor makes up of 80% of greenhouse gases, but water vapor levels are basically entirely dependent on temperature. even if we pumped more water vapor in the air, it would rain down. co2 doesn't rain down, though, it accumulates, and we can measure this. it should take somewhere between 5k and 20k years for co2 to increase by 100ppm. instead we've seen it jump 100ppm in the last 120 years. we've upset the natural cycle. in the natural cycle, very little co2 accumulates over time. there is a rough state of equilibrium. even if we're adding a small amount, those small amounts are accumulating instead of being cycled. that's why its not hyperbolic to say "way more than would occur naturally." CO2 accumulation would take at best 40x longer to accumulate at the rate it currently is, and at worst 160 times longer. that's pretty significant

4) it's actually incredibly consistent with mean temperature anomolies... (source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604)

https://i.gyazo.com/df56f8ef534d6baccbf6982cbb823ce0.png

5) yes there are some positives. do you think the positives outweigh the negatives? why aren't we actively working to pump even more co2 in the air? heck, why not pump more methane, is its has an even more potent greenhouse effect?

Those natural variations have dwarfed human effects because those humane effects have only been active for something close to 150 years. Many of those natural effects, such as the earth's wobble or cosmic rays, are long term cycles that have no bearing on temperature changes of this short a timescale. The major short scale variations are the el nino/la nina effects, and the short 11 year solar cycle, which are all incorporated into climate models and accounted for.

[DarrinS]

^I don't disagree that a small quantity of something CAN have a large effect, but it also may not. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is still an active area of research and has a high degree of uncertainty.

[spurraider21]

^I don't disagree that a small quantity of something CAN have a large effect, but it also may not. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is still an active area of research and has a high degree of uncertainty.
ehh... thats merchants of doubt stuff. we know the sensitivity to CO2 in a vacuum. doubling CO2 concentration should warm 1.8 degrees celsius. the question is how to factor in all the positive and negative feedback mechanisms. there is variance in these studies, but they almost all converge on a range from 2 to 4 degrees celsius for a doubling of CO2. almost none say its below 2, and there are some that exceed 4, but thats the generally accepted range

im sure roy spencer disagrees... but he's got a serious confirmation bias thing going on. he's a signatory to this :lol

http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

global warming doenst exist because jesus is protecting us... cool beans

[spurraider21]

if you're opposed to environmental regulation... that's a position you can hold.

you can go the ben shapiro route and say, regardless of what the science says, even if its true, it doesn't make economic sense to regulate, and the free market will fix things anyway... or you can go the "i gotta disagree with everything libcucks say" route and oppose regulation because that makes you a traitor to the right, like that asshole bib inglis

you can justify that position a number of ways, and we can argue from there ,but holding on to the scientific fringe to rationalize your view is kinda weak imo. you can separate the science from the policy like shapiro does (although he takes shots at the science all the time, his argument largely rests on the "even if the science is true" hypo)

people used to (and may still do) argue that putting taxes and regulations on the cigarette/tobacco industry is anticapitalist and the market should self regulate. thats a position one can hold. but naturally up until the mid-late 90's, most rationalized their view on that industry by saying the science was uncertain, and that there isn't good enough evidence/study/research to show that nicotine is addicting or that smoking has a strong correlation to a number of illnesses

[DarrinS]

ehh... thats merchants of doubt stuff. we know the sensitivity to CO2 in a vacuum.

global warming doenst exist because jesus is protecting us... cool beans

Wow. Where do I begin? The atmosphere is not a vacuum. All those other variables and feedbacks come into play. Hence the uncertainty.

Last part, just lol. Does my previous post suggest I don't think "climate change" is real? I'm just skeptical about catastrophe. That's all.

[spurraider21]

Wow. Where do I begin? The atmosphere is not a vacuum. All those other variables and feedbacks come into play. Hence the uncertainty.

Last part, just lol. Does my previous post suggest I don't think "climate change" is real? I'm just skeptical about catastrophe. That's all.lol i didnt mean the atmosphere was in a literal vacuum. its an expression of looking at something in a vacuum

which scientific study has used the word catastrophe that you are skeptical of?

[DarrinS]

if you're opposed to environmental regulation... that's a position you can hold.

you can go the ben shapiro route and say, regardless of what the science says, even if its true, it doesn't make economic sense to regulate, and the free market will fix things anyway... or you can go the "i gotta disagree with everything libcucks say" route and oppose regulation because that makes you a traitor to the right, like that asshole bib inglis

you can justify that position a number of ways, and we can argue from there ,but holding on to the scientific fringe to rationalize your view is kinda weak imo. you can separate the science from the policy like shapiro does (although he takes shots at the science all the time, his argument largely rests on the "even if the science is true" hypo)

people used to (and may still do) argue that putting taxes and regulations on the cigarette/tobacco industry is anticapitalist and the market should self regulate. thats a position one can hold. but naturally up until the mid-late 90's, most rationalized their view on that industry by saying the science was uncertain, and that there isn't good enough evidence/study/research to show that nicotine is addicting or that smoking has a strong correlation to a number of illnesses

Only read first sentence.

When did you stop beating your wife?

See what I did there?

[DarrinS]

lol i didnt mean the atmosphere was in a literal vacuum. its an expression of looking at something in a vacuum

which scientific study has used the word catastrophe that you are skeptical of?

Great point. Actual scientific papers aren't usually alarmist. That's where the media and politicians come in.

[spurraider21]

Only read first sentence.

When did you stop beating your wife?

See what I did there?
i see what you tried to do there, certainly


Great point. Actual scientific papers aren't usually alarmist. That's where the media and politicians come in.the politicians and media that rigorously oppose environmental regulation routinely try to discredit and deny those findings that you dont seem to disagree with. odd.

high percentage of research papers show x. "we shouldn't pass this burdensome legislation because there is still question and debate about x." GOP congressmen flat out deny the very existence of climate change. "hurr durr they used to call it global warming now they call it climate change hurr durr"

[DarrinS]

i see what you tried to do there, certainly

the politicians and media that rigorously oppose environmental regulation routinely try to discredit and deny those findings that you dont seem to disagree with. odd.

high percentage of research papers show x. "we shouldn't pass this burdensome legislation because there is still question and debate about x"

What findings do I disagree with? Can there be "findings" or "facts" about a future not yet experienced?

Alarmism isn't really in the literature, but here's the kind of shit that gets shown at climate conferences. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk

[spurraider21]

alarmism isn't in the literature. exactly.

and yet "skeptics" or whatever the fuck you want to call them routinely try to refute or marginalize the very findings in the literature. or you just have fuckfaces like trump and thread who think the entire field of study is a liberal plot

i agree that video is over the top. which researchers put that video together?

[Thread]

alarmism isn't in the literature. exactly.

and yet "skeptics" or whatever the fuck you want to call them routinely try to refute or marginalize the very findings in the literature. or you just have fuckfaces like trump and thread who think the entire field of study is a liberal plot

i agree that video is over the top. which researchers put that video together?

You're calling me a fuckface, 21? Do it again.

[spurraider21]

You're calling me a fuckface, 21? Do it again.On this issue? Absolutely.

[Thread]

On this issue? Absolutely.

Then do it again.

[spurraider21]

Then do it again.On the climate change issue, you are a fuckface. Right next to Donald.

[Thread]

On the climate change issue, you are a fuckface.

No, 21, seriously do it again, and in the mean time have you watched your children, or, mother masturbate lately?

[spurraider21]

No, 21, seriously do it again, and in the mean time have you watched your children, or, mother masturbate lately?
"It's all a liberal hoax."

Signed,
Fuckface

[Thread]

"It's all a liberal hoax."

Signed,
Fuckface

It is a loaded crock of horseshit. Introduced to redistra...............you know what, forget it, 21. You win.

[spurraider21]

It is a loaded crock of horseshit. Introduced to redistra...............you know what, forget it, 21. You win.If you can explain what's flawed with the science, I'm all ears. Otherwise you're just playing the santa card, and only pussies and assholes play the santa card.

[boutons_deux]

Once-cautious climate economist warns against the cost of Trump era inaction

William Nordhaus says social cost of CO2 much higher than he thought, while team Trump says it is zero.

https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.n5mlmi1a0

[Thread]

Once-cautious climate economist warns against the cost of Trump era inaction

William Nordhaus says social cost of CO2 much higher than he thought, while team Trump says it is zero.

https://thinkprogress.org/once-cautious-climate-economist-warns-against-the-cost-of-trump-era-inaction-c19ff36ff964#.n5mlmi1a0

It's a crock of pure shit concocted to separate man from his money. A redistribution of wealth by gov't.

[spurraider21]

You think it's bullshit because you don't like the idea of it.

You tell a kid Santa is make believe, and he's going to fight you on it because he hates the idea of Santa being imaginary

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you taking anything Bozo writes at face value?

He knows he is full of shit. He just tries different tactics to push your buttons.

He's laughing like a clown at your irritated response.

[spurraider21]

Why are you taking anything Bozo writes at face value?

He knows he is full of shit. He just tries different tactics to push your buttons.

He's laughing like a clown at your irritated response.nah, he's irritated. out of principle, he hasn't responded to me since i called him a fuckface on the matter. so when he sees me respond to him, he's tempted to answer, but knows he can't

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2017/0203/Spotted-in-Washington-conservatives-supporting-climate-action

Spotted in Washington: conservatives supporting climate action

The event just as easily could ​have been canceled. It was planned back​ in October, when the organizers weren’t expecting a Trump election victory. Yet here they were last week​, five economists and an attorney, talking about the idea of a nationwide tax on carbon emissions.

Lots of people showed up. And they were conservatives, not liberal environmentalists. This panel discussion filled a large room at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, even though the Trump administration so far shows no interest in carbon taxes.

Participants poked a bit of fun at themselves – referring to their discussion as a "faculty club" chat.

Yet the event showcased an important reality: Even as climate change is essentially absent from the priority list of President Trump and the Republican-led Congress, a meaningful number of conservatives in America support the idea of reducing heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere.

“You’re not going to convince 100 percent of the world,” Aparna Mathur, an American Enterprise Institute economist who was part of the panel, said after the event. But she sees a shrinking number of conservatives who oppose a carbon policy.

By some measures, she may be right. In March 2016, a Gallup survey found 40 percent of Republicans saying they worry a “great deal” or “fair amount” about the issue. That was up from 31 percent in a poll the previous year.

Even so, of course, support for climate action is hardly an influential viewpoint in GOP politics.

For all the inroads some libertarians and moderate Republicans thought they’d made with their carbon tax crusade, Trump’s ascendency in last year’s election campaign suggests how little climate change matters to the bulk of conservative voters. He dismissed the issue, championed fossil fuels, and ran into no primary-election barriers.

It looks like a long road ahead to remake the GOP into something more environmentally friendly.

But Ms. Mathur and some other conservative climate advocates see some wind at their backs.

Many cities and states are moving on climate, even if Washington isn’t. Businesses, which compete in a global economy, are doing it as well. And Millennials, who believe in climate change more than older generations do, are a rising influence in both major parties. And they point to polls finding Republican support for clean energy and at least some government climate action.

A conservative think tank hosting a debate on a carbon tax underscores the interest the idea has already generated on the political right. Taxing carbon is potentially both effective and bipartisan – a conservative approach in the sense that it leans on marketplace incentives to reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, some conservatives even hold out hope a carbon tax could be implemented under Trump, wiggling its way into a broad overhaul of the federal tax code. Economists like Mathur, along with Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina Republican congressman who now pushes for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, have proposed using the revenues to cut the corporate income tax rate. A portion of revenues could be used to offset energy price increases for low-income households most affected by a carbon tax.

“I believe there are a lot of Republicans who actually might be in support of this policy, they are just hesitant to come out and talk about it because at the end of the day we’re talking about a new tax,” Mathur says.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
http://i.imgur.com/0gF44CC.jpg

Another Jew scam to separate shekels from Goyim

[spurraider21]

Lol... Still pushing the pause claim that always conveniently cherry picks a 1998 starting point, which was an extraordinarily strong el nino year. A 10 year running average is always preferred to cherry picked start and end dates for obvious reasons

[TheSanityAnnex]

Lol... Still pushing the pause claim that always conveniently cherry picks a 1998 starting point, which was an extraordinarily strong el nino year. A 10 year running average is always preferred to cherry picked start and end dates for obvious reasons
Outed yourself quickly as having not read the article

[spurraider21]

Outed yourself quickly as having not read the article
I read the article. I wasn't directly addressing it. I'm at work, don't have time to go through it point by point. Making a comment about the "from 1998 through..." chatter that is generally heard

Plus that author is known to be a hack that cherry picks quotes and sources

[spurraider21]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/04/23/3CD7C57C00000578-4192182-image-a-90_1486249374130.jpg

:lol... metoffice and NOAA use different baseline temperatures, so of course their results would vary this wildly when you plug the raw data. what happens when you use the same baseline?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Picture2-copy.jpg

of course though... why wouldn't Dr. Bates just author a refutation of the findings, pointing out flaws in their methodology and data... instead of just giving an interview with the dailymail?

the entire article is full of partial quotes... most of them just small sentence fragments. the only extended quotes from Bates I found in the article...
‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
didn't really expand on that

and


‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

and that's fine, but if you think there are errors... author a scientific refutation instead of whining to a journalist like david rose. and for all the hoopla about adjustments, here's a representation of the adjustments from the original paper itself. not exactly paradigm altering :lol

https://i.gyazo.com/de2696a1a4d22ed400bc31410ea080a1.png

[spurraider21]

:lol


Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."

http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_STUDY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-07-15-14-00%EF%BB%BF

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, but his claim that they didn't follow their own rules of scientific integrity are still true.

[spurraider21]

:lol

peer reviewed paper confirming the results of the Karl paper... that the buoy results are more accurate than results collected by boat, but that adjustments must be made because the buoy results have a cooling bias relative to the boat results (because the measurements were taken near the ship engines)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5216687/

[spurraider21]

Yes, but his claim that they didn't follow their own rules of scientific integrity are still true.There are concerns there that should be looked into, but the headline making rounds around the blogosphere (and the previous page on this thread) was...

"Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data"

but of course the data wasn't "manipulated" and nobody was "duped into investing" because of it

[Wild Cobra]

There are concerns there that should be looked into, but the headline making rounds around the blogosphere (and the previous page on this thread) was...

"Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data"

but of course the data wasn't "manipulated" and nobody was "duped into investing" because of it
Does it matter?

We have a huge percentage of people who stupid. Just look at who we put in as our elected officials. The climate sciences are no different. The news will be as slanted as any, because sensationalism is what sells.

What would the story be and sales, if the headlines read that global warming would bring prosperity?

[spurraider21]

Does it matter?

We have a huge percentage of people who stupid. Just look at who we put in as our elected officials. The climate sciences are no different. The news will be as slanted as any, because sensationalism is what sells.

What would the story be and sales, if the headlines read that global warming would bring prosperity?Yes it does matter. People like Thread read the bullshit headlines, think "oh the scientists are just totally faking this shit"... dont bother to do any follow up research, or fact check and vote accordingly

[Thread]

Yes it does matter. People like Thread read the bullshit headlines, think "oh the scientists are just totally faking this shit"... dont bother to do any follow up research, or fact check and vote accordingly

I'm not following up this horseshit, 21, and I ain't fact checkin' either. I do not believe any of it for an instant.

It is a fresh revenue stream to separate Americans from their money.

& it is nothing more.

[spurraider21]

I'm not following up this horseshit, 21, and I ain't fact checkin' either. I do not believe any of it for an instant.

It is a fresh revenue stream to separate Americans from their money.

& it is nothing more.Last time we went down this path I called you a Fuckhead. Don't be obtuse, cub.

Your approval of climate change is not a requisite. Lot's of folks were upset when told the earth revolved around the sun, but the scientists dragged them, kicking and screaming.

If you don't like the policies and the taxes, so be it, that's your right. But let the scientists do their thing. They'll figure it out... and humanity progresses with science and technology, not with kings and queens.

[Thread]

Last time we went down this path I called you a Fuckhead. Don't be obtuse, cub.

Your approval of climate change is not a requisite. Lot's of folks were upset when told the earth revolved around the sun, but the scientists dragged them, kicking and screaming.

If you don't like the policies and the taxes, so be it, that's your right. But let the scientists do their thing. They'll figure it out... and humanity progresses with science and technology, not with kings and queens.

Fine, let the scientists do their thing, but, I ain't ever buying this hoax, 21. If you need to call me vile names then go ahead, I won't hold it against you like I did last time.

[mavsfan1000]

What climate change?

[Thread]

What climate change?

[tlongII]

What climate change?

It's winter and it used to be fall.

[pgardn]

Fine, let the scientists do their thing, but, I ain't ever buying this hoax, 21. If you need to call me vile names then go ahead, I won't hold it against you like I did last time.

Of course you are not. You can't.
It does not fit. Some people can't handle science. It's ok. Just make something up. Then you will be the first to perish when you realize a good bleeding out is not going to cure your pneumonia. It's all good,

[pgardn]

It's winter and it used to be fall.

Why? Why does fall lead into winter?

[Thread]

Of course you are not. You can't.
It does not fit. Some people can't handle science. It's ok. Just make something up. Then you will be the first to perish when you realize a good bleeding out is not going to cure your pneumonia. It's all good,

Just the next asshole in the line trying to make a living. Like Media, and pgardn, and Ford, and doctors and McDonalds and science(tists)...there is nary difference in the lot. They are each trying to make a fucking living and each will stoop as far as one will permit.

(Science) ain't special, they're not a sacred cow that must be believed, or, the nonbeliever is cast down. Screw off, science, this cat ain't buyin' what you're selling. NO---FUCKING---WAY.

[Thread]

[[[After the collapse of the Lakers, Cub had his back broken, ass fucked and he was, naturally, humbled.]]]

But I still ain't buyin' this Climate Change BULLSHIT!!!

[spurraider21]

But you don't know anything about it other than you don't like it.

[Thread]

But you don't know anything about it other than you don't like it.

If it looks like a pile of shit and smells like a pile of shit. It's a pile of shit.

[spurraider21]

If it looks like a pile of shit and smells like a pile of shit. It's a pile of shit.You just don't like it, cub. That's fine.

[DMC]

I highly doubt anyone here has looked at the data from a knowledgeable, scientific perspective enough to confirm the veracity of the claim. Some are taking the appeal to authority approach where they simply trust scientists have no agenda other than pure science and others are taking the approach that everyone is a liar until proven otherwise. At the end of the day you're right where you started, no fucking idea.

[Thread]

You just don't like it, cub. That's fine.

And like all of these pie-in-the-sky 5 alarm fires 20 years from now they'll quietly self debunk it, move about 50 miles from the ruins and start a fresh gd 5 alarm fire.

It never ends.

[Thread]

I highly doubt anyone here has looked at the data from a knowledgeable, scientific perspective enough to confirm the veracity of the claim. Some are taking the appeal to authority approach where they simply trust scientists have no agenda other than pure science and others are taking the approach that everyone is a liar until proven otherwise. At the end of the day you're right where you started, no fucking idea.

Exactly. They're just as needy and dishonest as the next American.

- "Separate the saints from the sinners and you're lucky to end up with Abraham Lincoln."

- "Hud" - "Hud"

[spurraider21]

I highly doubt anyone here has looked at the data from a knowledgeable, scientific perspective enough to confirm the veracity of the claim. Some are taking the appeal to authority approach where they simply trust scientists have no agenda other than pure science and others are taking the approach that everyone is a liar until proven otherwise. At the end of the day you're right where you started, no fucking idea.If all the scientists in the world are "in" on a global, half-century long conspiracy, and every piece of their data is manufactured and manipulated, then sure, I've been blind. I don't have the means to collect global temperature averages, and I'm not going to go analyze and rediscover the radiation absorption properties of CO2 molecules, collect my own historic ice core samples, and all on my own become an expert on glaciology, atmospheric physics, geology, paleoclimatology, and oceanography.

[spurraider21]

Fine, let the scientists do their thing.

[DMC]

If all the scientists in the world are "in" on a global, half-century long conspiracy, and every piece of their data is manufactured and manipulated, then sure, I've been blind. I don't have the means to collect global temperature averages, and I'm not going to go analyze and rediscover the radiation absorption properties of CO2 molecules, collect my own historic ice core samples, and all on my own become an expert on glaciology, atmospheric physics, geology, paleoclimatology, and oceanography.

That's a lot of wording to say "yep, I am using appeal to authority".

[spurraider21]

That's a lot of wording to say "yep, I am using appeal to authority".Sure. But it's not the authority of one individual... as in "I believe x is true because person a says so."

This is why there is a scientific process, including replication. Science is a collective body on knowledge, not some guy calling the shots and making proclamations.

[DMC]

Sure. But it's not the authority of one individual... as in "I believe x is true because person a says so."

This is why there is a scientific process, including replication. Science is a collective body on knowledge, not some guy calling the shots and making proclamations.

There's nothing wrong with believing something because authority deems it so, and there's nothing wrong with not believing it because you don't trust the authority, but both sides really are left to just their own epistemological nuances.

The scientific process does exist, but you're taking the word of individuals that it was carried out properly. You didn't do it yourself. Otherwise it would be a huge issue that data was compromised by using ship data instead of buoy data. Since human elements are involved and many scientists build on foundations set by others, folks like us rarely really question the foundation of how the data was gathered. You see it all the time here with various stats with little regard to how they were collected, why and by whom.

[spurraider21]

There's nothing wrong with believing something because authority deems it so, and there's nothing wrong with not believing it because you don't trust the authority, but both sides really are left to just their own epistemological nuances.

The scientific process does exist, but you're taking the word of individuals that it was carried out properly. You didn't do it yourself. Otherwise it would be a huge issue that data was compromised by using ship data instead of buoy data. Since human elements are involved and many scientists build on foundations set by others, folks like us rarely really question the foundation of how the data was gathered. You see it all the time here with various stats with little regard to how they were collected, why and by whom.which is what makes the process so important. if the data was fabricated, the author of that paper would be exposed as soon as various groups attempting to replicate the findings aren't able to.

it admittedly falls apart if there has been a global, 60+ year conspiracy

[Thread]

which is what makes the process so important. if the data was fabricated, the author of that paper would be exposed as soon as various groups attempting to replicate the findings aren't able to.

it admittedly falls apart if there has been a global, 60+ year conspiracy

Damn, I'll be six feet under and surrounded by wood in the balance of 45 years, 21.

You lucky thing, you.

[DMC]

which is what makes the process so important. if the data was fabricated, the author of that paper would be exposed as soon as various groups attempting to replicate the findings aren't able to.

it admittedly falls apart if there has been a global, 60+ year conspiracy

Well sure, but not before a bunch of non-scientists began a religion around it while a bunch of naysayers with folded arms simply turned a deaf ear.

[spurraider21]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

[Wild Cobra]

Yawn.

Seen it. It's meaningless.

[spurraider21]

Yawn.

Seen it. It's meaningless.i mean, it's not meant to be an all-inclusive proof of AGW. it's more so aimed at audiences who:

a) don't even acknowledge that there's been significant warming in the last century
b) or even if they acknowledge there's been some warming, think it's just business as usual as the climate has always changed. the chart shows that the recent warming is not consistent with previous, gradual long-term changes (there is no 500 year window in this timetable with a 1 degree change... and yet we've had more than a 1 degree shift in the last century)

the causes of that warming are a different discussion, though fairly obvious and well understood in the scientific community

[boutons_deux]

Carbon Dioxide Could Reach Levels Unseen in 50 Million Years


https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMD AwLzA5MC8wOTIvb3JpZ2luYWwvY2FyYm9uLWRpb3hpZGUtZ3Jh cGguanBn

http://www.livescience.com/58539-carbon-dioxide-levels-unprecedented-in-human-history.html?utm_source=ls-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170405-ls

Planet is fucked and unfuckable

Thanks, BigCarbon, and your whore scientists and whore politicians.

[boutons_deux]

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage': scientists despair at latest coral bleaching data

‘Last year was bad enough, this is a disaster,’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/great-barrier-reef-terminal-stage-australia-scientists-despair-latest-coral-bleaching-data

but BigCorp, enabled/protected by Trash + Repugs, MUST have its BigCarbon profits.

[RandomGuy]

Yawn.

Seen it. It's meaningless.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170429_FBC508.png


Maybe you could apply your vast talents to explaining away 375,000,000,000 TONS of vanishing ice from the Greenland ice sheet each year, and how that isn't a problem.

[RandomGuy]

i mean, it's not meant to be an all-inclusive proof of AGW. it's more so aimed at audiences who:

a) don't even acknowledge that there's been significant warming in the last century
b) or even if they acknowledge there's been some warming, think it's just business as usual as the climate has always changed. the chart shows that the recent warming is not consistent with previous, gradual long-term changes (there is no 500 year window in this timetable with a 1 degree change... and yet we've had more than a 1 degree shift in the last century)

the causes of that warming are a different discussion, though fairly obvious and well understood in the scientific community

Good article summing things up, as well as some economic effects (shocker):

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21721364-commercial-opportunities-are-vastly-outweighed-damage-climate-thawing-arctic

[boutons_deux]

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170429_FBC508.png

Maybe you could apply your vast talents to explaining away 375,000,000,000 TONS of vanishing ice every year from the Greenland ice sheet, and how that isn't a problem.

Mar-a-Lago going under, along with 1/3 of FL

[spurraider21]

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170429_FBC508.png


Maybe you could apply your vast talents to explaining away 375,000,000,000 TONS of vanishing ice every year from the Greenland ice sheet, and how that isn't a problem.
But the antarctic is gaining 80 billion :cry

That cancels out the 375

[Wild Cobra]

Mar-a-Lago going under, along with 1/3 of FL

Statements like that are why people laugh at idiots like you.

[Chucho]

Both sides are laughable and ponderous with their stances. To deny that it is getting hotter than a fuck is retarded beyond belief but putting a fucking non-scientist pedophile idiot like Bill Nye behind your fear mongering and stupid "we're all gonna drown" apocalyptic-scenario propaganda is of course the next jump in ridiculous posturing.

It's fucking hot. Nothing is going to change it. Big Oil gets its belly rubbed by the Dems and the Repubs, so it's more PR posturing from both sides than anyone actually every doing anything that isn't financially motivated. Someone will come in and say, "but they did this, this and this" and selectively ignore their party's actions or lack of, and it's one big clusterfuck.

This is definitely a gangbang of fuckery from both sides and I fucking HATE, HATE HATE hot weather and not wanting to step outside. Makes me want my move to Boise to come sooner.

[RandomGuy]

Mar-a-Lago going under, along with 1/3 of FL

Oh the irony.

[RandomGuy]

Both sides are laughable and ponderous with their stances. To deny that it is getting hotter than a fuck is retarded beyond belief but putting a fucking non-scientist pedophile idiot like Bill Nye behind your fear mongering and stupid "we're all gonna drown" apocalyptic-scenario propaganda is of course the next jump in ridiculous posturing.

It's fucking hot. Nothing is going to change it. Big Oil gets its belly rubbed by the Dems and the Repubs, so it's more PR posturing from both sides than anyone actually every doing anything that isn't financially motivated. Someone will come in and say, "but they did this, this and this" and selectively ignore their party's actions or lack of, and it's one big clusterfuck.

This is definitely a gangbang of fuckery from both sides and I fucking HATE, HATE HATE hot weather and not wanting to step outside. Makes me want my move to Boise to come sooner.

FlgJJgKs-iA

Posted this bit before. It is an attempt to do some risk-analysis on the subject. The guy goes into a lot more detail in the later videos after getting tons of feedback that make the whole body of work better than this first, basic attempt.

I have said all along that there is no evidence that I have seen, despite asking and looking at what passes for it (DarrinS posted a flawed study once that was the best I have seen, and that says a lot) taking modest steps to mitigate CO2 emissions is all that harmful to the overall economy.

Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables offers jobs, if not more jobs (especially ones that can't be outsourced).

Given the huge potential downside, and some solid tangible benefits to an economy (especially the avoidance of the nasty pollution problems that accompany fossil fuel extraction), it seems to me to be a no brainer.

In short:
Yeah, the science is fairly well along, and shows a human cause to the changes in our climate. The only quibbling is about the scale.
Downside is pretty bad, and easily avoided by steps that offer potential for economic growth.

[RandomGuy]

It's fucking hot. Nothing is going to change it. Big Oil gets its belly rubbed by the Dems and the Repubs, so it's more PR posturing from both sides than anyone actually every doing anything that isn't financially motivated. Someone will come in and say, "but they did this, this and this" and selectively ignore their party's actions or lack of, and it's one big clusterfuck.


Part and parcel of how moneyed interests can drive "solutions" that benefit narrow interests while messing over the rest of us.

The good thing is that green energy interests and jobs are starting to flex their own muscles in that regard.

It is funny watching the people who think of themselves as "free market champions" and have used free market arguments to rail against "expensive" green energy, now have to see the concrete benefits of economies of scale, and how that reduces per unit costs, a very basic microecnomic concept, that I have been pointing out would happen with a modest investment for years.

"but, but, free markets" never really was a valid excuse but it is really really thin and getting thinner with each passing financial quarter, because those free markets are, quite literally in some cases, driving innovation, job creation, and economic output when it comes to renewables and other green energy.

[RandomGuy]

Statements like that are why people laugh at idiots like you.

That's almost as bad as claiming a science reporter is completely inaccurate because of a immaterial spelling mistake. That was risible.

[boutons_deux]

Statements like that are why people laugh at idiots like you.

It's gonna happen, there's no stopping it, thanks to idiots like you.

[Wild Cobra]

That's almost as bad as claiming a science reporter is completely inaccurate because of a immaterial spelling mistake. That was risible.


It's gonna happen, there's no stopping it, thanks to idiots like you.
You really think 1/3rd of Florida will go too?

[boutons_deux]

You really think 1/3rd of Florida will go too?

Do Your Own Research

--WC

[Wild Cobra]

Do Your Own Research

--WC

LOL...

You are such a loser.

I asked a question of opinion. Not fact. How can I research the opinion of a fucktard like you?

[Chris]

Excellent discussion here. Someone who has been studying this for 35 years...

ZDK1aCqqZkQ

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

You are such a loser.

I asked a question of opinion. Not fact. How can I research the opinion of a fucktard like you?

What I said was not opinion but fact

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

[RandomGuy]

You really think 1/3rd of Florida will go too?

I don't think I have the expertise or knowledge to effectively provide any opinion.

I have seen it presented as a possibility in a time frame over 100+ or so years, if memory serves.

[RandomGuy]

Excellent discussion here. Someone who has been studying this for 35 years...

ZDK1aCqqZkQ

45 minutes of discussion?

Summary?

I will watch it if you watch 45 minutes of material I present.

Otherwise, I will take a pass unless you can summarize.

[RandomGuy]

You really think 1/3rd of Florida will go too?


http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20170429_FBC508.png


Maybe you could apply your vast talents to explaining what happens to ocean levels when you start adding teratons of melted ice to it. 3,750,000,000,000 TONS of vanishing ice from the Greenland ice sheet alone.

[DarrinS]

I don't think I have the expertise or knowledge to effectively provide any opinion.

I have seen it presented as a possibility in a time frame over 100+ or so years, if memory serves.

Florida was under water much longer than above water. Nothing to do with humans. That's why it so unstable and full of sink holes.

[RandomGuy]

Florida was under water much longer than above water. Nothing to do with humans. That's why it so unstable and full of sink holes.

Indeed.

So how is that relevant to what is going to happen to it because of humans? Going to trot out the same bad arguments that were debunked literally years ago in this thread?

Do I need to explain strawman arguments to you again? Really?

smh

[RandomGuy]

Florida was under water much longer than above water. Nothing to do with humans. That's why it so unstable and full of sink holes.



X condition existed naturally in the past
X condition no longer applies through natural action
Therefore human action can't cause X condition to exist again.

Or alternately
X condition existed naturally in the past
X condition no longer applies through natural action
Therefore only natural action can cause X condition to exist again.


Rock A existed naturally on top of Rock B in the past.
Rock A through natural flood action is now no longer on top of Rock B.
Therefore human action can't cause rock A to be on top of Rock B.

I am, of course, guessing at what you are trying to say. Why do you put so little effort into it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But the antarctic is gaining 80 billion :cry

That cancels out the 375

Increased sea ice is not a good thing.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think I have the expertise or knowledge to effectively provide any opinion.

I have seen it presented as a possibility in a time frame over 100+ or so years, if memory serves.
And that is using the highest of assessments, and we are on track with the lowest of assessments.

Seems like a real ignorant belief to me. But then, your dogma is a false religion.

[RandomGuy]

And that is using the highest of assessments, and we are on track with the lowest of assessments.

Seems like a real ignorant belief to me. But then, your dogma is a false religion.

(yawn)

Sorry not interested in the bait.

I noticed you still haven't answered the question:

What do you think will happen to the teratons of melting ice?

[Wild Cobra]

(yawn)

Sorry not interested in the bait.

I noticed you still haven't answered the question:

What do you think will happen to the teratons of melting ice?
Remind me. Which ice is in question?

Sea ice or sheet ice?

Sea ice has no effect on sea level. Sheet ice is in approximate balance between growing and shrinking mass areas.

Let me correct that. Not balance, but at a steady rate of small decline trend for a few hundred years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Remind me. Which ice is in question?

Sea ice or sheet ice?

Sea ice has no effect on sea level. Sheet ice is in approximate balance between growing and shrinking mass areas.

Let me correct that. Not balance, but at a steady rate of small decline trend for a few hundred years.

When land ice becomes sea ice it does, dim.

[Wild Cobra]

When land ice becomes sea ice it does, dim.

LOL...

You are truly a total retard.

LOL...

What you said is meaningless to my statement.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[spurraider21]

Both sides are laughable and ponderous with their stances. To deny that it is getting hotter than a fuck is retarded beyond belief but putting a fucking non-scientist pedophile idiot like Bill Nye behind your fear mongering and stupid "we're all gonna drown" apocalyptic-scenario propaganda is of course the next jump in ridiculous posturing.

It's fucking hot. Nothing is going to change it. Big Oil gets its belly rubbed by the Dems and the Repubs, so it's more PR posturing from both sides than anyone actually every doing anything that isn't financially motivated. Someone will come in and say, "but they did this, this and this" and selectively ignore their party's actions or lack of, and it's one big clusterfuck.

This is definitely a gangbang of fuckery from both sides and I fucking HATE, HATE HATE hot weather and not wanting to step outside. Makes me want my move to Boise to come sooner.try ignoring what the politicians say and keep your focus on the scientific research that is being pumped out. the picture becomes quite clear

[spurraider21]

Excellent discussion here. Someone who has been studying this for 35 years...

ZDK1aCqqZkQ:lol crowder


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE&t=6s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNmq4ouWww


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeOZSMrwnYw

[spurraider21]

Increased sea ice is not a good thing.the 80 billion antarctic gains are not to sea ice, it's land ice

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

[AaronY]

Didnt watch Chris's video of course but I like how it says "ACTUAL SCIENTIST" in all caps atop The screen. In other words "this guy agrees with me" basically so he's a real scientist as opposed to all phony guys from NASA for the last 25 years

[pgardn]

This is where it gets scary.
Throw out the science:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/07/epa-dismisses-half-of-its-scientific-advisers-on-key-board-citing-clean-break-with-obama-administration/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_epa-advisers1140pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a2bdeccc434f


Maybe some of these people were political hacks, however, they will definitely be replaced by hacks.
Donald needs some reassurance he is winning in his own mind, since this is all that matters.

[RandomGuy]

Remind me. Which ice is in question?

Sea ice or sheet ice?

Sea ice has no effect on sea level. Sheet ice is in approximate balance between growing and shrinking mass areas.

Let me correct that. Not balance, but at a steady rate of small decline trend for a few hundred years.

The Greenland Ice sheet as well as the rest of the worlds glaciers, and above-sea level ice. Not like clicking back a page is difficult...

[Wild Cobra]

The Greenland Ice sheet as well as the rest of the worlds glaciers, and above-sea level ice. Not like clicking back a page is difficult...

The focus keeps changing and I don't have the time to re-read everything.

[boutons_deux]

The focus keeps changing and I don't have the time to re-read everything.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

US Military & Security Leaders Call On Tillerson & Mattis To Lead On Climate Security

a bipartisan group of 20 retired senior military officers and national security experts have signed companion joint letters urging US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis to lead on addressing the security implications of climate change.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/09/us-military-security-leaders-call-tillerson-mattis-lead-climate-security/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the 80 billion antarctic gains are not to sea ice, it's land ice

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


I get that mechanic. That is just warmer moist air increasing the precipitation over the landmass.

At the same time those ice sheets migrate out into the ocean where they submerge, melt, chip off, and become part of the sea ice. That is the mechanic I am talking about. Sea ice doesn't make a difference in sea level if it forms from sub zero water but the ocean is warming and it circulates so that is not what is happening. It's not isolated thermally like the interior of the continent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The focus keeps changing and I don't have the time to re-read everything.

Who knew climate could be so complicated?

[spurraider21]

I get that mechanic. That is just warmer moist air increasing the precipitation over the landmass.

At the same time those ice sheets migrate out into the ocean where they submerge, melt, chip off, and become part of the sea ice. That is the mechanic I am talking about. Sea ice doesn't make a difference in sea level if it forms from sub zero water but the ocean is warming and it circulates so that is not what is happening. It's not isolated thermally like the interior of the continent.they attribute it to "extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago" so i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is "warmer" air increasing precipitation unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years

[FuzzyLumpkins]

they attribute it to "extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago" so i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is "warmer" air increasing precipitation unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years

Did I put a time frame on the warmer air? Glaciers becoming sea ice remains the issue I was talking about.

Like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-antarctica-idUSKBN0H625T20140911

And don't play the climate denier game. The rate of warming was increasing out of the last ice age but the rate has accelerated far beyond natural oscillation. BEST put that to bed years ago.

[Wild Cobra]

Who knew climate could be so complicated?

I mean what you idiots are focusing on in these threads.

There is a deception by the pundits as to how high the oceans will rise. The research does not support the conclusions of those amateur pundits.

[spurraider21]

Did I put a time frame on the warmer air? Glaciers becoming sea ice remains the issue I was talking about.

Like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-antarctica-idUSKBN0H625T20140911

And don't play the climate denier game. The rate of warming was increasing out of the last ice age but the rate has accelerated far beyond natural oscillation. BEST put that to bed years ago.play the climate denier game? have you read any of my posts in this thread? paranoid fuck

[boutons_deux]

The research does not support the conclusions of those amateur pundits.

You Lie.

[Wild Cobra]

You Lie.
Please, by all means, eference a paper instead of an activist pundit.

Find a paper, read it, and quote the relevant sections.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[RandomGuy]

The focus keeps changing and I don't have the time to re-read everything.

:lol

Sure.

[boutons_deux]

Please, by all means, eference a paper instead of an activist pundit.

Find a paper, read it, and quote the relevant sections.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

... your BLIND IDEOLOGY renders you immune to contrary facts.

[RandomGuy]

I mean what you idiots are focusing on in these threads.

There is a deception by the pundits as to how high the oceans will rise. The research does not support the conclusions of those amateur pundits.


“The coastal communities of rapidly expanding cities in the developing world and vulnerable tropical coastal ecosystems will have a very limited time to adapt to sea-level rises after the ‘2 degrees Celsius’ threshold is likely to be reached,” said Svetlana Jevrejeva, a researcher at the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, England, and lead author of the study.

If the rate of carbon emissions continues unabated, the authors said, the globe would warm by 2 degrees and cause significant sea-level rise by 2040. It would be worse along the East Coast of North America and Norway, which are expected to experience a sea-level rise of about a foot. The relative speed of the sea’s rise means many areas won’t have time to adapt, researchers found. And from there, warming would accelerate even faster.

The sea-level rise comes as the Earth’s record-breaking warmth is expected to become the “new normal,” according to another study published this week in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. While 2015 was the hottest year on record, it could be the average within the next decade if carbon emissions continue to rise at their current rate, it found. And even if countries take action to limit carbon dioxide, humanity may have already locked in the increased warmth by 2040.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-levels-will-rise-faster-than-ever/

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Not exactly amateurs.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-levels-will-rise-faster-than-ever/

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Not exactly amateurs.

Facts don't matter to WC. He's post-fact and post-science that doesn't agree with his blind ideology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

play the climate denier game? have you read any of my posts in this thread? paranoid fuck

That line of argument is common in the denier community. Nothing more and nothing less but it is what it is.

:lol Paranoid. Sorry you don't like observations based on reality. I suggest some introspection.

[spurraider21]

That line of argument is common in the denier community. Nothing more and nothing less but it is what it is.

:lol Paranoid. Sorry you don't like observations based on reality. I suggest some introspection.what are you even talking about?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what are you even talking about?

The natural oscillation argument. "It's been warming since the last ice age." It's one of the go to denier arguments that BEST put to bed pushing a decade at this point.

You made that argument.

[spurraider21]

The natural oscillation argument. "It's been warming since the last ice age." It's one of the go to denier arguments that BEST put to bed pushing a decade at this point.

You made that argument.you're an imbecile. i didnt make any sort of argument. i quoted the nasa article that attributed the gains to increased snowfall for the past 10,000 years. if you weren't such a dipshit you would see that just two pages earlier in this thread, i posted a graphic which completely negates the "natural oscillation argument" and followed it up with a post that also stresses the acceleration of the rate of warming in recent years

you just see words you dont like and instantly go

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t31sX4ER1qgcra2o1_500.gif

CLIMATE DENIER! CLIMATE DENIER! CLIMATE DENIER!



http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t31sX4ER1qgcra2o1_500.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

they attribute it to "extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago" so i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is "warmer" air increasing precipitation unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years

You were saying?

You certainly seem asshurt though.

[DarrinS]

wow

[spurraider21]

You were saying?

You certainly seem asshurt though.yes. i quoted the nasa article that attributed it to extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago. that is not the same as the more recent warming we have seen in the last century

you're trying to pick a fight when there isn't one and make yourself look foolish in the process

[DarrinS]

stay calm and climategeddon on

[RandomGuy]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t31sX4ER1qgcra2o1_500.gif

That is a cool gif, I am so totally stealing it.

[RandomGuy]

stay calm and climategeddon on

Meh. The economy will make the fossil fuel play dumb anyway. The worlds largest car market is moving to electric vehicles, and that will have some pretty profound effects.

CO2 or not, your stupid arguments that you think were based on the free market about some sort of vague harm in reducing emissions are looking dumber by the minute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

yes. i quoted the nasa article that attributed it to extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago. that is not the same as the more recent warming we have seen in the last century

you're trying to pick a fight when there isn't one and make yourself look foolish in the process

It said it began then. You then said "i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is warmer unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years."

That is the natural oscillation argument. Own it.

Picking a fight? I am trying to discuss the topic. You are the one calling me a "imbecile" and now starting with emotional garbage like "making yourself look foolish."

I suggest you take those sentiments and try some introspection.

[spurraider21]

It said it began then. You then said "i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is warmer unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years."

That is the natural oscillation argument. Own it.

Picking a fight? I am trying to discuss the topic. You are the one calling me a "imbecile" and now starting with emotional garbage like "making yourself look foolish."

I suggest you take those sentiments and try some introspection.
The extra snowfall is a result of conditions that began 10,000 years ago. That is separate from the accelerated warming we've seen as a result of our activity. I was making sure the two weren't being conflated and you threw a hissy fit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The extra snowfall is a result of conditions that began 10,000 years ago. That is separate from the accelerated warming we've seen as a result of our activity. I was making sure the two weren't being conflated and you threw a hissy fit.

You said you could not give credence to any alternate mechanism unless it was the mechanism from 10k years ago. That is excluding anything other than that natural oscillation no matter how hard you try to distance yourself from it.

And I am not the one posting siren gifs and casting aspersions, hissy. I can understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind your original nonsense though.

[DarrinS]

Meh. The economy will make the fossil fuel play dumb anyway. The worlds largest car market is moving to electric vehicles, and that will have some pretty profound effects.

CO2 or not, your stupid arguments that you think were based on the free market about some sort of vague harm in reducing emissions are looking dumber by the minute.


The earth has endured far worse calamities than CO2 and animal farts, tbh.

[spurraider21]

You said you could not give credence to any alternate mechanism unless it was the mechanism from 10k years ago. That is excluding anything other than that natural oscillation no matter how hard you try to distance yourself from it.

And I am not the one posting siren gifs and casting aspersions, hissy. I can understand why you wouldn't want to stand behind your original nonsense though.Except I am standing behind it. The excess snowfall dates back 10,000 years. That is a separate phenomenon from the more recent agw

[spurraider21]

The earth has endured far worse calamities than CO2 and animal farts, tbh.
The earth will be just fine long after humans are extinct. The earth enduring things is irrelevant to how those same things affect humans.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except I am standing behind it. The excess snowfall dates back 10,000 years. That is a separate phenomenon from the more recent agw

I meant the other part which you will address directly to save your life. Specifically:


i don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is warmer unless you suggest it has been warmer for 10,000 years.

How could I possibly suggest anything but that. . . . . :lol like phenomenon peculiar to the past 2 centuries. Cannot figure it. . . . .

I do like you pretending that at any point I was arguing the existence of natural oscillation. The disagreement was about anything else contributing to the warm air over Antarctica that you just couldn't figure.

[spurraider21]

sigh

i'm getting tired of this


I get that mechanic. That is just warmer moist air increasing the precipitation over the landmass.

The extra snowfall is a result of conditions that began 10,000 years ago. That is separate from the accelerated warming we've seen as a result of our activity. I was making sure the two weren't being conflated and you threw a hissy fit.

the "warmer air" that is causing the excess precipitation is not the same attribution as the excess warming we've had due to human activity. the former has been a factor for over 10,000 years. i was clarifying that point.

you've somehow tried to spin that into me "playing the climate denier game"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sigh

i'm getting tired of this




the "warmer air" that is causing the excess precipitation is not the same attribution as the excess warming we've had due to human activity. the former has been a factor for over 10,000 years. i was clarifying that point.

you've somehow tried to spin that into me "playing the climate denier game"

The article didn't limit the phenomenon to one cause. It just said the phenomenon began 10k years ago when we came out of the last ice age. It's also not separate from the greenhouse effect. The change in solar radiation from the Earth's obliqueness, eccentricity, ENSO, the solar cycle, GHG, etc all contribute.

And no shit you were trying to say that natural oscillation was the exclusive cause. That has been my entire point: that is what AGW deniers do: say natural oscillation is the exclusive cause for GW.

Prima facie, it's pretty damn ignorant to say the Earth's warming from GHG would not accelerate the phenomenon. Higher temperatures means more moisture and most of the earth is covered in water.

[Wild Cobra]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-levels-will-rise-faster-than-ever/

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Not exactly amateurs.
“The coastal communities of rapidly expanding cities in the developing world and vulnerable tropical coastal ecosystems will have a very limited time to adapt to sea-level rises after the ‘2 degrees Celsius’ threshold is likely to be reached,” said Svetlana Jevrejeva, a researcher at the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, England, and lead author of the study.

My God Random...

Here we have an oceanographer who apparently thinks GW will cause the whole of the oceans to rise by 2C. Not just the immediate surface, which still will not rise by that much if the atmosphere does. She is outside here field.

Do the math.

Take the mass of the oceans and calculate how many joules of energy it takes to raise the temperature by 2 degrees, Then compute that to watt-hours, and then to what surface imbalance it takes over how many years to accomplish this.

I think it will surprise you.

[Wild Cobra]

Keep in mind just how ambiguous her statement is, and I wonder what it was in full context.

[RandomGuy]

The earth has endured far worse calamities than CO2 and animal farts, tbh.

How many of those were in our power to prevent, DarrinS?

I noticed you dodged the economic implications. Why is that?

[RandomGuy]

My God Random...

Here we have an oceanographer who apparently thinks GW will cause the whole of the oceans to rise by 2C. Not just the immediate surface, which still will not rise by that much if the atmosphere does. She is outside here field.

Do the math.

Take the mass of the oceans and calculate how many joules of energy it takes to raise the temperature by 2 degrees, Then compute that to watt-hours, and then to what surface imbalance it takes over how many years to accomplish this.

I think it will surprise you.

Do the math. How much will reducing CO2 emissions add to the economy?

That is the kind of math I am good at.

[Wild Cobra]

Do the math. How much will reducing CO2 emissions add to the economy?

That is the kind of math I am good at.

I'll tell you what.

I'll agree to mitigating CO2 emissions at the high cost it will take if we do not subsidize anyone for the higher costs of transportation, electricity, etc. I'll pay my own extra usage costs and expect everyone else to also.

I'm tired of all these progressive wealth distribution schemes.

[spurraider21]

My God Random...

Here we have an oceanographer who apparently thinks GW will cause the whole of the oceans to rise by 2C. Not just the immediate surface, which still will not rise by that much if the atmosphere does. She is outside here field.

Do the math.

Take the mass of the oceans and calculate how many joules of energy it takes to raise the temperature by 2 degrees, Then compute that to watt-hours, and then to what surface imbalance it takes over how many years to accomplish this.

I think it will surprise you.the article mentioned the "earth's warming"... doesn't mention the temperature of "the whole of oceans including beyond the immediate surface"

[spurraider21]

I'll tell you what.

I'll agree to mitigating CO2 emissions at the high cost it will take if we do not subsidize anyone for the higher costs of transportation, electricity, etc. I'll pay my own extra usage costs and expect everyone else to also.

I'm tired of all these progressive wealth distribution schemes.and herein lies the fundamental problem. people are taking their political preferences, in your case, lack of subsidies/distribution, and letting that cloud their judgment over the accuracy of the scientific findings.

ergo, you dont want distribution, therefore it is in your political interest for AGW to not be an actual thing/threat... leading you to constantly downplay it.

and with many (not necessarily you), on a simpler level, "i dont believe in global warming because liberals constantly talk about it"

[RandomGuy]

I'll tell you what.

I'll agree to mitigating CO2 emissions at the high cost it will take if we do not subsidize anyone for the higher costs of transportation, electricity, etc. I'll pay my own extra usage costs and expect everyone else to also.

I'm tired of all these progressive wealth distribution schemes.

How high will the cost be? Do tell.

That is some math I wish you would do.

I am tired of all these conservative wealth distribution schemes.

[Wild Cobra]

the article mentioned the "earth's warming"... doesn't mention the temperature of "the whole of oceans including beyond the immediate surface"

Then just how is this dramatic sea level change suppose to happen?

If you mean the melting of sheet ice, ever do the heat of fusion calculations to the energy imbalance requirements?

The ocean rise primarily because of melting sheet ice, and thermal expansion. Both require tremendous energy.

I challenge you to do the calculations sometime to meet these alarming levels of sea level rise.

[Wild Cobra]

and herein lies the fundamental problem. people are taking their political preferences, in your case, lack of subsidies/distribution, and letting that cloud their judgment over the accuracy of the scientific findings.

ergo, you dont want distribution, therefore it is in your political interest for AGW to not be an actual thing/threat... leading you to constantly downplay it.

and with many (not necessarily you), on a simpler level, "i dont believe in global warming because liberals constantly talk about it"
Believe as you wish.

Are you suggesting there are no other causes?

[Wild Cobra]

How high will the cost be? Do tell.

That is some math I wish you would do.

I am tired of all these conservative wealth distribution schemes.
First, what level of carbon reduction is needed to meet your goals?

How are you going to get Asia to stop?

To do any good, the level of carbon mitigation is very costly. Not just electricity, but all of transportation.

[spurraider21]

Then just how is this dramatic sea level change suppose to happen?

If you mean the melting of sheet ice, ever do the heat of fusion calculations to the energy imbalance requirements?

The ocean rise primarily because of melting sheet ice, and thermal expansion. Both require tremendous energy.

I challenge you to do the calculations sometime to meet these alarming levels of sea level rise.
i'm not qualified to. i'm scientifically literate enough to read what scientists publish. that's the extent of my knowledge. i dont have my own theories and calculations. i didnt read anywhere in that posted article that the author thought the entire ocean, at all depths, would rise by 2 degrees C

Believe as you wish.

Are you suggesting there are no other causes?
a lot of things affect the climate.

solar forcing... over a long trend, solar luminosity increases with time. on a shorter scale, we have the 11-ish year cycle

the earth's wobble, the milankovitch cycle... over a roughly 140,000 year timescale

cosmic rays/cloud cover (although there is uncertainty here... some people like richard lindzen argue that having fewer clouds has a cooling effect because clouds trap heat, where others claim having fewer clouds warms the earth because clouds reflect sunlight). experiments in recent years have tended to shown that fewer clouds have in fact led to a net warming effect

there are a many things that factor into climate. i'm sure you know all about forcing and insulation... but when you ask which are able to sufficiently account for the recent accelerated warming the earth has experienced, agw as a result of increased co2 takes the cake.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i'm not qualified to. i'm scientifically literate enough to read what scientists publish. that's the extent of my knowledge. i dont have my own theories and calculations. i didnt read anywhere in that posted article that the author thought the entire ocean, at all depths, would rise by 2 degrees C

a lot of things affect the climate.

solar forcing... over a long trend, solar luminosity increases with time. on a shorter scale, we have the 11-ish year cycle

the earth's wobble, the milankovitch cycle... over a roughly 140,000 year timescale

cosmic rays/cloud cover (although there is uncertainty here... some people like richard lindzen argue that having fewer clouds has a cooling effect because clouds trap heat, where others claim having fewer clouds warms the earth because clouds reflect sunlight). experiments in recent years have tended to shown that fewer clouds have in fact led to a net warming effect

there are a many things that factor into climate. i'm sure you know all about forcing and insulation... but when you ask which are able to sufficiently account for the recent accelerated warming the earth has experienced, agw as a result of increased co2 takes the cake.

A long time ago I realized that a Bert Russell quote defines WC very well:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Of course WC dumbed down the ocean's layers and gradients as such. That is what he does: get a harebrained idea of a complex idea and try to apply it to everything; nuance is a complete mystery to him. You should have seen him when I introduced him to the idea of linearity when comparing systems. That was fun.

On a certain level its entertaining watching him equivalate simple and complex and act like its valid but I would not advise or expect any real understanding from him.

He can fumble around with "what" somewhat but the "how" and "why" are all but impossible for him. It's why he has to constantly refer to troubleshooting checklists by rote for the machines that he changes parts on.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Fuzzy logic at it again...

I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding me. Not my problem.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

Fuzzy logic at it again...

I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding me. Not my problem.

If you are going to make such claims and have people believe it then you need to explain what I am missing.

I did not just say you were a dumbfuck. I pointed out specifically what your limitations were and how they manifest.

[Wild Cobra]

If you are going to make such claims and have people believe it then you need to explain what I am missing.

I did not just say you were a dumbfuck. I pointed out specifically what your limitations were and how they manifest.

Why? No matter what I say, you come up with some dumbfuck excuse.

You should be happy I waste as much time as I do with you! I normally ignore your stupid ass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why? No matter what I say, you come up with some dumbfuck excuse.

You should be happy I waste as much time as I do with you! I normally ignore your stupid ass.

:lol You cannot do it.

And I haven't posted much here in over a month. I come back and talk to someone else about your stupidity once and you respond.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol You cannot do it.

And I haven't posted much here in over a month. I come back and talk to someone else about your stupidity once and you respond.

If that's what makes you sleep better at night...

Go ahead. Have the last word. No need to waste more time with you.

[D_Admiral]

Lets spend 15 trillion dollars to combat a hoax.

[SnakeBoy]

First, what level of carbon reduction is needed to meet your goals?

How are you going to get Asia to stop?

To do any good, the level of carbon mitigation is very costly. Not just electricity, but all of transportation.

Pre industrial CO2 levels is the ultimate goal.

You don't need to get Asia to stop.

Carbon capture and utilization is the future. Plenty of breakthroughs every year on that front. When CO2 is a valuable commodity we'll have our cake and eat it too. And people like RG will be pissed because the evil fossil fuel industry will continue on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pre industrial CO2 levels is the ultimate goal.

You don't need to get Asia to stop.

Carbon capture and utilization is the future. Plenty of breakthroughs every year on that front. When CO2 is a valuable commodity we'll have our cake and eat it too. And people like RG will be pissed because the evil fossil fuel industry will continue on.

Stabilisation of CO2 levels is the goal at this point. Nature does a good job creating carbon sinks on its own.

Given the new solid state, high voltage, sodium based battery technology, renewables prices are going to drop even more. From what I understand the first models have triple the energy density and do not crystallize under high voltage. Sodium is a hell of a lot cheaper than lithium.

Fossil fuels will always have a role unless someone can come up with a catalyst to bond nitrogen during open air hydrogen combustion. It's portability and at will applications are useful to say the least. There is just no good reason why it should be the dominant energy provider moving forward.

[Wild Cobra]

Pre industrial CO2 levels is the ultimate goal.

You don't need to get Asia to stop.

Carbon capture and utilization is the future. Plenty of breakthroughs every year on that front. When CO2 is a valuable commodity we'll have our cake and eat it too. And people like RG will be pissed because the evil fossil fuel industry will continue on.
That means completely stopping any CO2 emissions. It would be prohibitively expensive.

[boutons_deux]

.. as if AGW is without cost

[D_Admiral]

:bang

[boutons_deux]

Florida Sea Level Rise & Unchecked Coastal Developments

The piercing emerald-green waters of the Gulf coast of Florida (http://planetsave.com/2016/08/31/calamity-century-yet-st-petersburg-florida-tropical-storm-sewage-crisis/) and the wilder expanse of shimmering waves on the Atlantic coast, especially near Miami, attract immense amounts of development on an essentially flat limestone sponge — a porous sandy terrain.

day by day, month by month, large coastal luxury buildings shoot sky high, with almost no sidewalk to spare on one side and sand that will soon be underwater on the other. No wall can hold back that water — it will just leak through underneath.

That water can even come up through the wastewater drainage pipes, a nice way to be flooded (wink, wink).

Experts foresee all those coastal causeways (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/28/climate-change-sink-coastal-property-values-flood-inland-cities-refugees/) will be underwater, becoming the beginning of modern-day Atlantis.

“Relative sea levels in South Florida are roughly four inches higher now than in 1992,” Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners) reports.

“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts sea levels will rise as much as three feet in Miami by 2060.

By the end of the century, according to projections by Zillow, some 934,000 existing Florida properties, worth more than $400 billion, are at risk of being submerged.”

“Nobody thinks it’s coming as fast as it is,”

says Dan Kipnis, the chairman of Miami Beach’s Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority, who has been trying to find a buyer for his home in Miami Beach for almost a year, and has already lowered his asking price twice.”Going on, the South Florida real estate story gets even more interesting.

“Some South Florida homeowners, stuck in a twist on the prisoner’s dilemma, are deciding to sell now—not necessarily because they want to move, but because they’re worried their neighbors will sell first.”

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/14/florida-sea-level-rise-unchecked-coastal-developments/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[D_Admiral]

Expert say humans to blame for the rise in temperatures of planets like mars and jupiter...........:........

[spurraider21]

Expert say humans to blame for the rise in temperatures of planets like mars and jupiter...........:........post where you get your information on mars and jupiter's climates and how they've gotten warmer