Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Thebobo]

http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/climate-change-skeptics-call-out-marchers-hypocrisies/

“Somehow this doesn’t seem too green 2me,” Kreutzer tweeted.

He and other critics of the People’s Climate March called the protesters hypocrites for wasting paper and burning fossil fuel in getting to the big event.

“The hypocrisy varies from person to person,” economist Kreutzer, 61, told The Post. “The ones that fly in on private jets are the most hypocritical.”

Wrong thread?

 

[fskimospy]

Way to hoist yourself on your own petard. So the most explosive growth in atmospheric global warming in the last century was between 1993-1997. Concurrently in this time frame the ocean was warming at 3 degrees C BY YOUR OWN POST. Since that time, the ocean has continued to warm at the SAME pace but atmospheric warming has completely flatlined.... all while CO2 release has continued unabated.

Jesus do you even pay attention to the facts you post? You are supposed to post facts that support your side of the argument NOT MINE!!!!!!

You clearly aren't understanding what you're reading and you're embarrassing yourself now.

You've been shown, yet again, to be completely clueless about climate change. A more rational person would have revised their position way before now.

 

[unokitty]

I'll stand with Galileo, the denier .

If you like your standing with politicians, you can keep your politicians.

Uno

 

[Paul98]

I'll stand with Galileo, the denier .

If you like your standing with politicians, you can keep your politicians.

Uno

So you must have evidence to disprove man made global warming, and have a new theory?

 

[fskimospy]

I'll stand with Galileo, the denier .

If you like your standing with politicians, you can keep your politicians.

Uno

Is this unintentional irony?

Now I've seen it all. Climate change deniers are trying to claim the mantle of great scientists so that they can deny science. I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be this brazenly dishonest.

 

[norseamd]

Is this unintentional irony? Now I've seen it all. Climate change deniers are trying to claim the mantle of great scientists so that they can deny science. I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be this brazenly dishonest.

I was basically in shock more or less.

 

[xBiffx]

I'll stand with Galileo, the denier .

If you like your standing with politicians, you can keep your politicians.

Uno

Yep, why I made it my sig a while ago.

 

[brycejones]

Is this unintentional irony?

Now I've seen it all. Climate change deniers are trying to claim the mantle of great scientists so that they can deny science. I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be this brazenly dishonest.

Yep

I was basically in shock more or less.

Yep

Yep, why I made it my sig a while ago.

Look here comes one now

 

[Jaskalas]

Using all available green technology from around the world especially American technology to design green power technology, green transportation vehicles, and more that China and India will produce for both themselves and the US. Basically we allow them access to our technology for them producing vehicles, machinery, infrastructure, etc. and selling it to us for low cost. They can also produce these same goods for their society allowing themselves to start using green technology right away without needing to use polluting industry to develop their country. Since they would be producing for both themselves and us they can gain from the economies of scale and everything is even cheaper for everyone.

So our technological push becomes more than a US effort, and turns into a global effort. I can't disagree as long as they invest / pay their share. Still you avoid the "science" of imminent doom if you're talking long term R&D.

Such collaborations will payout in decades, you do not believe CO2 is an immediate threat? If you don't then we're on the same page and almost arguing for the same things.

 

[norseamd]

So our technological push becomes more than a US effort, and turns into a global effort.

Yes.

I can't disagree as long as they invest / pay their share. Still you avoid the "science" of imminent doom if you're talking long term R&D.

Not sure what you mean by imminent doom. There are possible tipping points that we might have to act earlier than if we want to avoid total ecological destruction. Those could vary from only decades away to later in this century. We only know so much about the climate of Earth right now which makes all of our emissions all the more dangerous. This does not include biological engineering which by the way governments, companies, and citizens are reacting to climate change probably is going to become necessary despite our lack of knowledge about the climate. Keep in mind this also is assuming our current knowledge of climate and not what we might know decades from now. There were some estimates that we might need a exascale supercomputer to do some real computations of the climate of Earth for us to understand more about what is actually going on. Also remember that exascale supercomputers are predicted to exist by 2018 or so. That is only 4 years from now.

 

[norseamd]

Such collaborations will payout in decades, you do not believe CO2 is an immediate threat? If you don't then we're on the same page and almost arguing for the same things.

No it is only a relative threat today compared to the more devastating destruction in the next decades. By relative I mean more than subtle by not necessarily black or white destruction but just influencing shit.

 

[Olikan]

even without global warm, is that hard to want fresh air in the citys?

 

[manimal]

Is this unintentional irony?

Now I've seen it all. Climate change deniers are trying to claim the mantle of great scientists so that they can deny science. I have to admit it takes a lot of balls to be this brazenly dishonest.

its laughable at best and the ironing is delicious.

 

[dphantom]

act earlier than if we want to avoid total ecological destruction.

seriously!! This is one reason why we cannot have a debate over what to do about man's affect on climate. You really think man alone can do that? I hardly think so.

On the other side of course are the absolute blind "deniers" who think man has zero affect on climate.

both sides are out of touch.

 

[norseamd]

seriously!! This is one reason why we cannot have a debate over what to do about man's affect on climate. You really think man alone can do that? I hardly think so. On the other side of course are the absolute blind "deniers" who think man has zero affect on climate. both sides are out of touch.

The Earth would certainly recover but the climate would certainly be different and many species of life would probably be extinct. This is exactly the same thing as past extinctions. Everything is not black and white considering some species would thrive and take over the various positions and niches of the ecological community. This led to the rise and genetic diversification of mammals and avian dinosaurs after the last extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is more than just the Earth warming. There are also currents and jet steams that influence all of the climate on Earth that we have to worry about in how they might dramatically fuck up the climate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_(ecology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_web

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

even without global warm, is that hard to want fresh air in the citys?

I must have missed that post. Who said they don't want fresh air in the cities?

 

[bshole]

I must have missed that post. Who said they don't want fresh air in the cities?

I guess he thinks CO2 isn't "fresh" enough. ROFLMFAO!

Sponge all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and EVERYTHING dies. It is an absolutely CRITICAL component for life on earth to exist.

 

[Paul98]

I guess he thinks CO2 isn't "fresh" enough. ROFLMFAO!

Sponge all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and EVERYTHING dies. It is an absolutely CRITICAL component for life on earth to exist.

You never fail to deliver, got to love changing the argument from humans need to lower their CO2 contribution, and the CO2 levels to a manageable level. Then changing it to you must want to get rid of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. That's bad? durr really?? give me a break

 

[chucky2]

I must have missed that post. Who said they don't want fresh air in the cities?

Probably the city people. Why support having airports anywhere close to your locale? Look how much pollution those are putting out...for what? Business can be done by video conference. Traveling for the sake of travel is done by selfish assholes who do not care what their personal impact is having to Gaia.

Either the problem is serious or it isn't...people need to make up their minds. Surprisingly, the problem is only serious enough that never requires real personal sacrifice by those advocating how serious the problem it. It's like people claiming those well off need to pay more in taxes, and are well off themselves, not actually paying what they believe they should really be paying, and making outrageous claims such as, Oh, well, I/We just can't actually pay what we feel we should be paying, because, um, uh, er, ah, oh yeah, compulary taxation!

Until these folks claiming Gaia is dying actually start seriously limiting their own lifestyle regardless if others do, we're duty bound to pollute as much as we can get away with, no shame attached. It's always nice seeing the rationale trotted out to keep their lifestyles going, but, impact others in the name of their crusade... :biggrin:

 

[fskimospy]

Probably the city people. Why support having airports anywhere close to your locale? Look how much pollution those are putting out...for what? Business can be done by video conference. Traveling for the sake of travel is done by selfish assholes who do not care what their personal impact is having to Gaia.

Either the problem is serious or it isn't...people need to make up their minds. Surprisingly, the problem is only serious enough that never requires real personal sacrifice by those advocating how serious the problem it. It's like people claiming those well off need to pay more in taxes, and are well off themselves, not actually paying what they believe they should really be paying, and making outrageous claims such as, Oh, well, I/We just can't actually pay what we feel we should be paying, because, um, uh, er, ah, oh yeah, compulary taxation!

Until these folks claiming Gaia is dying actually start seriously limiting their own lifestyle regardless if others do, we're duty bound to pollute as much as we can get away with, no shame attached. It's always nice seeing the rationale trotted out to keep their lifestyles going, but, impact others in the name of their crusade... :biggrin:

This has to be one if the dumbest posts you have ever made. It's always funny when someone so proudly states their ignorance of fundamental ideas like collective action problems. Proud to be stupid!

Pretty much you're just one of those people who defines their position in every issue by where you stand in the culture war. yawn.

 

[chucky2]

Must have hit close to home, huh? :hmm:

 

[theeedude]

I'll stand with Galileo, the denier .

If you like your standing with politicians, you can keep your politicians.

Uno

Except the church was the one denying that Earth revolved around the Sun. So good metaphor, but it got the sides wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Must have hit close to home, huh? :hmm:

Lol.

 

[chucky2]

Ahh, it's as I thought... :biggrin::thumbsup:

 

[HumblePie]

You never fail to deliver, got to love changing the argument from humans need to lower their CO2 contribution, and the CO2 levels to a manageable level. Then changing it to you must want to get rid of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. That's bad? durr really?? give me a break

Yah his argument is strawman at best.

I will make an argument though for human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Core samples have shown that CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been much higher with many historical periodic spikes that dwarf the current amount in the air now. What caused those spikes and then relatively quick dissipation afterwards we as humans don't know. There are many historical climate changes that have happened in the past that we can verify happened, but have no clue how they came about.

Are humans contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Sure we are. How bad is it? Don't know yet. Does that mean we shouldn't work to reduce CO2 and other green house gas emissions along with other forms of pollution? Nope. That is all good stuff to do and I have never heard anyone argue against that.

What I have heard is the argument against the claims that within our current lifetimes, the world's climate will be so bad as to be unsustainable to life as we know it. OR some such nonsense. That is utter crap.