Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 12 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 25 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Global Warming, Are you a Believer
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 8:54AM #111
Posts: 557

Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:24PM, Bodean wrote:

Is this what you advocate Cat??  Let's go back to grubbing in the dirt??  A time before modern medicine, modern transportation, modern modes of communication??  No electricity, no oil, no lignite coal, but rather, wood, charcoal and whale oil?

A time when "survival of the fittests" ruled, and the weak were either enslaved or slaughtered? And a time when "world news" encompassed your immediate kingdom, and nobody really gave a crap about what "other" worlds were doing.

Quite frankly, .... hmmm .. something to ponder!

Big business, governments, and a growing global middle class will not heed warnings given by scientists, as too much money is at stake when it comes to "business as usual." They will welcome, though, deniers who will tell them what big businesses and governments want them to hear, that everything is fine and all problems will be solved easily.

What will force everyone to cut down on resources will be a continuous global recession, a resource crunch, and the long-term effects of environmental damage.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:02AM #112
Posts: 557

Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:28PM, Bodean wrote:

You actually have a point there love .... China is exempt from any criticism when it comes to "climate" ... err .. should I say ... CO2 emissions.  Ya see, in the leftists mind, China is "below its quota", whereas the US is way above its quota.  I've heard it said many times .. we have 5% of the population, but use something like 25% of the worlds oil.

That's just no fair!  That's not "social equality"!

More nonsense! China is excempt from criticism because it is a major trading partner of various countries, including the U.S.

It is increasing consumption of various resources not because it is "below its quota" but because it is experiencing a growing middle class which, together with the rest of BRIC and emerging markets, will lead to resource consumption rates that will make those of OECD countries pale in comparison.

The U.S. and even various OECD countries are cutting down on resource use not because they are "above...quota" but because of a credit crunch brought about by casino capitalism.

What should concern you isn't just that the U.S. consumes up to 25 pct of world oil production, but that in order to maintain global economic growth, other countries will have to increase consumption as well. The reason is extremely obvious: for you to be able to afford that nice car, house, cell phone, and other luxuries, you need to SELL more of that to others. In short, sales for various consumer goods has to go up each time. The reason isn't the nonsense about fairness, social equality, and other nonsense that you've been giving.

The catch is that in order to maintain that growth, oil consumption has to go up by at least 2 pct per annum, and similar increases has to take place for various resources. But the IEA has already shown that at best we will get a 9 pct increase in energy from all oil and gas sources for the next two decades. And given the effects of environmental damage coupled with natural disasters such as floods and drought, then expect the cost of resources to go up even more.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:11AM #113
Posts: 557

Mar 27, 2012 -- 11:47AM, TENAC wrote:

Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again

The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with predictions.

But for "global warming models" to be wrong, that will mean including data from the UAH and others used by deniers.

Also, the conclusion of the article has nothing to do with the thesis. If any, it should welcome these models and from there argue that conclusions (not the models) are wrong.

Also, the UAH data has also gone against conclusions raised by deniers. I recall one article about that from Spencer's site.

With that, the best thing to do is to gather all available models and sets of data, put them together, and come up with what should be the best predictors. The NAS did that, and so did BEST, which was supported by deniers. Unfortunately for the latter, the conclusions of these two science groups is similar.

The danger is that deniers will argue that because the science is complex then observations will have to take place for a very long time (which is the point in the last paragraph of the article). Is that a logical thing to do, especially given the issue of environmental damage and pollution?

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:17AM #114
Posts: 557

Mar 27, 2012 -- 6:35PM, Bodean wrote:

SO .. the NEW EN VOGUE approach ... "extreme weather".

When you don't inform yourself on time, chances are you see this indeed as a "new approach". But then, when you don't inform yourself, chances also are your opinion doesn't matter very much. Isn't all your "nothing new under the sun" preaching 100% superfluous, by definition?

Speaking of "informing" .... and of course, all that fake science you speak of .... what are your thoughts on this .... peer reviewed, published study, from Academia ....

conclusion: "This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."


I mean .. .Leftists have told me for years that the MWP and LIA were just "regional" events.  Mann and his Tree Ring Circus with the clown gang at the IPCC have assured us of this, yet peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study .. including this latests one ... tend to prove otherwise.

SO ... it all comes back to legislation again.  Should we support the legislation supported by the CAGW Cabal, who have told us that the MWP and LIA were just "Regional", who've been caught colluding on keeping alternative studies and hypotheses out of the IPCC documents, who recently got caught forging documents to frame a group who does not embrace their perspective, and who have benefited from BILLIONS of dollars in tax funded research grants ......

OR ....

Should we give a second look to the REST OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, who have to scrape for research dollars, who are moving forward with SCIENCE, and who are NOT INVOLVED in any political wrangling at all, other than raising an eyebrow at the lies, deciet, and political postering of the CAGW crowd.

P.S. ... I've been well aware of the "extreme weather" slant for some time.  The "latests" is in the context of the continueing saga .. ya know .. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heatwaves, etc etc.  All such claims that turn out to be false, but none-the-less, are parrotted by leftists in the media for poltical propaganda purposes.

The problem isn't that warming took place but CO2 levels tracking temperature during the past half-a-billion years or so. The Vostok data is presented by the NAS in its summary report, and they ask what happens if CO2 levels go up abnormally. You can see what the NAS says about that in its summary report.

The last part is also addressed by the NAS, which you should consider, as you value "peer-reviewed, published [studies]," and this is, as some deniers acknowledge, the "gold standard" of science review.


Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:21AM #115
Posts: 557

Mar 28, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:

Charik .. I would hold that it is the Left who do not look at the bigger picture, and it is the Left who exclude "the greater body of science".

Nobody disputes that CO2, and by relation, "man", has an effect on Climate.  The debate is about magnitude, and whether or not that magnitude justifies draconian measures implemented throught political means.

While there is considerable evidence that man is having an effect, the weight of evidence, including the CAGW cabals own predictions, suggests that the magnitude is nowhere near what the poltically driven left would have.

When I line up all the claims put forth by the Leftists CAGW Cabal, to justify their political activism, and push for govenrment intervention, there can be no doubt who is driving the madness.

Just like in the OP of this thread, the LEFT, not the skeptics, have leached onto every little conincidence to support their position, and "suggests" that it is because of Global Warming.  But in every incidence, their claims are proven false.  For example .....

- After Katrina, they claimed increased Hurricanes and Strength ... the science says, no.

- Kilamanjaro, Left claims due to CO2 and AGW ... science says no. [logging]

- Floods in India, Left claims CAGW ... science says no.

- Polar Bears, Left claims they are going instinct, ... science say no they are not.

- Heat Wave in Russia, Left claims CAGW ... science say no.

- Warm Winter here in the States this year, Left uses it to ask do you believe in AGW .. science says .. no.

This is ALL nothing more than propaganda to try and garner public support for their legislation curbing fossil fuel usage ... IMO, primarily because Leftists HATE the oil companies, and particularly, the Koch Brothers.

As for the science ...

- For 20 years now, the CAGW Cabal has predicted catestrophic warming as a result of increasing CO2.  Yet, the Climate has not responded even close to what their "models" have predicted. [yet the CAGW Cabal still insist their models are right].

While the Left continues to jump and down and "claim" that it is Man's CO2, and pushing for an IPCC driven, Government Control of Fossil Fuels, there is a plethora of real science pushing forward, continueing to search for the truth.  Svensmark and his Cosmic Ray, Cloud Studies, Astrophysicists, who've been given a golden opportunity with the fall of solar parameters such as Magnetics, Solar Wind, Sun Spot Area, Ap Index, etc etc etc.  Other groups looking at Cloud Physics, and how they respond to increased temps, work on the oceans, and how they are cycling, etc etc.

Then there is the "ethics" issues.  You can always tell who's got the most to gain by looking at who plays the dirtiest.

- It was the CAGW Cabal, who are on record prior to 2001 saying "we must get rid of the MWP".

- It was GISS [Hansen] and Hadcrut [Jones], who've hidden data and code adjustments, such that the rest of the scientific community could not replicate and validate their work.  Jones is even on record in email saying "why should I give you the data so you can disprove it". [Because that's the scientific method Phil .. that is how you validate your stuff]

- It was the "team" who manipulated data to get rid of the MWP, inappropriately using Tree Rings, even when the Tree Experts said it was inappropriate. ... and then of course, the "team" made up the claim that the MWP was "regional".  The study I posted is not "one" study, .. it is the latest of many, to dispute this false claim.  In fact, there is an entire project dedicaated to collecting these studies .. and visual map of some of the more relevant summarized .

- It was the CAGW crowd who've been caught in Climategate I and II, obfiscating the truth and engaging in dirty practices.

- It was Glieck, a member of the CAGW crowd who forged a document in order to frame Heatland.

As was confirmed in the Climategate II email dump ... by a warmist no doubt ...

ClimateGate email 1285

"So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently. Mike [Hulme]"

Let me repeat a part there Charik ... not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.  YET .. Leftists, will tell me that "the Science is Settled" .... ad nauseum.

And what is this crap about "our basis for exceptional global warming".  The World should not be worried about their pet "basis", but the truth, and legislation most certainly shouldn't be derived from it.  [ie., hence, why it really is just politics and not science at all].

So .. when I have an email, found on a server exclusive to the CAGW Cabal, written by one of the Alarmists, that flat out agrees this is not about environment, but about politics and power ... along with the PLETHORA of other data and studies, and other unethical events surrounding this group, ......... sorry, .. but you have a seriously HUGE burden to convince me that this group is above board.

Various science groups have concluded that no manipulation was involved in data from Hansen and others. The NAS itself uses such data.

That makes much of your points, from claims of some "cabal" to constant references to "leftists," pure garbage, especially the last paragraph.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:26AM #116
Posts: 557

Mar 28, 2012 -- 10:22PM, Bodean wrote:

We just have the wrong regulations.

We all agree that we must have some regulation .. especially about quality.

The problem with our regulation is that it "cost money".  It cost money, because the governmet is in the business of taking our money.  It's what they do.  You want to open up such n such .. fine, it'll cost you this much in fees, permits, and studies, and this and that ... etc etc.

It is not a wonder that companies go elsewhere.

We all agree on "quality" regulations.  Hey .. I want my water to be clean, I want my food to be edible, I want my air to be breathable.  But there is no reason the Government should make a red cent on an industry trying to get started.  In fact, amcoph is the tendency of our regulation to cost money that skews it towards the "big guys" and against the "small fries".

Take a look at pollution levels in places where companies go, such as China.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 9:37AM #117
Posts: 557

Mar 29, 2012 -- 5:40PM, Bodean wrote:

Mar 27, 2012 -- 10:55AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Mar 27, 2012 -- 9:40AM, Bodean wrote:

SO .. the NEW EN VOGUE approach ... "extreme weather".

When you don't inform yourself on time, chances are you see this indeed as a "new approach". But then, when you don't inform yourself, chances also are your opinion doesn't matter very much. Isn't all your "nothing new under the sun" preaching 100% superfluous, by definition?

OOOPS ... IPCC seems to disagree with this "extreme weather" bull s**t.

FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? [...]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.–IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change… The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados… The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. –IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

Looks like the old uninformed conservative idiot is more on top of the subject that the enlightened intelligent "progressive".

But I'm sure if you get your buddies in the media to push the subject hard enough, a few fools will believe it.

FWIW, the IPCC referred to this a few days ago:

"IPCC Report Blames Extreme Weather on Climate Change…But Should It?"

but since you did mention that the organization gives fraudulent conclusions, then I wonder if that will have any bearing on the conclusion that "fools" eventually support.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2012 - 10:12AM #118
Posts: 11,110

Mar 31, 2012 -- 9:37AM, paeng wrote:

..... have any bearing on the conclusion that "fools" eventually support.

I'm not going to respond to each of your post, because they all say the same thing.

... that same thing .. is  .. you say I'm wrong.  You say all the other scientific disciplines are wrong.  You say all of the documented, and proven flaws are wrong.  So .. I guess .. iyo ..

The glaciers on Kilamanjaro are melting because of Global Warming ...

Hurricanes are indeed getting more frequent and stronger because of Global Warming ...

Tree Rings truly are the best metric for paleoclimatology ...

Climategate emails really didn't show anything ...

The NOAA study on Russia's heatwave is wrong, and thus, it really was about Global Warming ...

All that research going on now on Clouds and other Solar influences ... are wrong, ...

.. BASICALLY .. anyone who disagree's with NAS is wrong.

OK ... have it your way.  It's a free world.

I'll stick with what I know ... and that is, years ago, I predicted on this site based on the alternative lines of science that Solarcycles 24 and 25 would be weak, and that the climate would cool.  The ten year trend is showing exactly that.  3 of the 4 metrics show cooling, and one is flat. [interstingly, the one that is flat is UAH, the one that Leftists say is denialists]

All of this .. while CO2 has risen from 375 ppm to 392 ppm.


Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 2:12PM #119
Posts: 2,883

This not a question of belief or non belief; we leave that to religion.

Most scientists,including myself, are convinced that there is no objective scientific evidence to support global warming. Climatic cycles occur over eons a few short years proves nothing.

Quick Reply
6 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2012 - 9:58PM #120
Posts: 11,110

Apr 1, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Marcion wrote:

This not a question of belief or non belief; we leave that to religion.

Most scientists,including myself, are convinced that there is no objective scientific evidence to support global warming. Climatic cycles occur over eons a few short years proves nothing.

Indeed Marcion.

It is for this reason that thousands of scientists have signed petitions refuting the conclusions of the IPCC.  They KNOW that this is all JUST POLITICS!

So .. while Lisa Jackson is putting in place legislation that will bar any new coal fired power plants, and Obama is giving 1/2 Billion dollar grants to his buddies in the althernative energy sector, all of which has had ZERO ROI ... there is a simmering majority who realize that all this Global Warming B.S. is nothing more that political propaganda.

Meanwhile .. the arctic ice is only 142K km from being "normal" ... and Global Sea Ice is ABOVE NORMAL.  No doubt, because there is no science involved in making the claims, "higher than normal global sea ice can be expected from CAGW".

It's like it doesn't matter what happens ... more heat, more snow, less ice, more ice, drowing polar bears, a polar bear baby boom, ... doesn't matter, the poltically driven LEFT will "claim" that it is "what's expected", and thus rally the call for legislation to slay the Koch Brothers, the Coal Companies, ... and of course, forbid any Nuclear plants. ... and increase the unemployment role.

It's just crazyness.

Quick Reply
Page 12 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 25 Next
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook