Climate Science Is Not Settled

[bshole]

I distinctly remember studying global cooling in the 7th grade. We spent a great deal of time discussing the coming ice age and what it would do to modern society. So while "global cooling" might never have been a main stream opinion, it was certainly in our text books.

It's odd that way back then it was presented not as a pending disaster, but as an event that we would have to deal with.

Yep I remember that as well. I also remember being taught that the oil/gas would be gone by the year 2000. I put the global warming prophets in the same pot. When "scientists" start predicting cataclysm they strike me not as scientists but as religious zealots. Unfortunately when these boneheads are proven wrong about the catastrophe, they simply will be replaced by other "scientists" who will start predicting another looming crisis which we can only avert by devastating the economy. In reality, these scientists are just a bunch of luddites and anti-social misfits who hate humanity.

 

[norseamd]

Yep I remember that as well. I also remember being taught that the oil/gas would be gone by the year 2000. I put the global warming prophets in the same pot. When "scientists" start predicting cataclysm they strike me not as scientists but as religious zealots. Unfortunately when these boneheads are proven wrong about the catastrophe, they simply will be replaced by other "scientists" who will start predicting another looming crisis which we can only avert by devastating the economy. In reality, these scientists are just a bunch of luddites and anti-social misfits who hate humanity.

I thought you were liberal?

 

[Paul98]

I will let the climate scientists explain their reasoning as they have in their paper. I am unclear as to your credentials that allow you to say their work is incorrect.

I am not questioning the paper, I am saying you don't understand it.

Edit: The funny thing is, I have been waiting for deniers to cling on to part of the paper and they have yet to do it.

 

[Paratus]

This paper has committed heresy and will be burned at the stake shortly.

No it will be incorporated into the body of knowledge on the subject. But you knew that already.

I understand precisely what was done.

Oh you do?

I will let the climate scientists explain their reasoning as they have in their paper. I am unclear as to your credentials that allow you to say their work is incorrect.

Oh you don't..........

And for you Londo:

 

[Greenman]

This thread is hilarious!

Republicans in congress debating a scientist:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-...hing-a-million-pounds-of-idiot-up-a-mountain/

CBD in full affect across the nation at all levels. Perhaps more posters here can post quotes and take them out of context to back their opinion? Maybe they could make up more billshit arguments that display their full ignorance of the subject? Either way, I'd enjoy laughing at them if it wasn't so fucking sad.

And another half wit jumps on the cooties bandwagon. Drop moonie a PM, he'll be thrilled.

 

[Paratus]

Yep I remember that as well. I also remember being taught that the oil/gas would be gone by the year 2000. I put the global warming prophets in the same pot. When "scientists" start predicting cataclysm they strike me not as scientists but as religious zealots. Unfortunately when these boneheads are proven wrong about the catastrophe, they simply will be replaced by other "scientists" who will start predicting another looming crisis which we can only avert by devastating the economy. In reality, these scientists are just a bunch of luddites and anti-social misfits who hate humanity.

Case in point for why a shitty science education is bad.

 

[Greenman]

How is that odd? Whatever textbook you had was already written by someone incompetent, as it was taking a fringe scientific opinion and presenting it as a fact. It seems like once you're doing that whatever your ideas for action are pretty suspect, wouldn't you say?

A few posts back you said there was never a global cooling theory, now your calling it a "fringe scientific opinion", yet it was considered main stream enough to be in California text books. It's apparent that you don't know anything about it, you're simply pulling statements out of your ass because you never learned how to say "I don't know".

 

[bshole]

I thought you were liberal?

I am still pissed off about the 10 fucking thousand I lost on coal stock. I sold the stock off. Money before politics every time my friend.

Here is synopsis of my politics:
I hate the rich
I love unions
Pro-choice
Pro-drugs
Anti-war on 3rd nations
Support cutting military spending
Anti-global warming
Pro socialized medicine
Anti-free trade

I wouldn't have a probem with global warming per se if it stuck to what we know. The world has been in a warming trend for awhile now. Man is putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere. This has a some effect on the amount of warming. OK, I can understand and buy into all of that.

Then they go off the rails and predict the utter destruction of humanity in a century or so unless we destroy the economy of today's generation. It is at that point where they completely lose me. That is NOT science, that is religion.

 

[Paul98]

What I have been finding interesting is that most who deny global warming do the exact same thing. Post some article they read that they think is evidence against global warming such as it is cold in the US, or arctic ice has increased since 2012. They then are shown that what they list is not evidence against global warming. Then rather defending their position they simply ignore that and post another thing they think is evidence against global warming. It's funny because it continually changes, there will be some article that circulates through their circle of blogs and news sites. Then they all parrot that same thing. Once that changes they then parrot the next thing.

They simply continue to do this till they have nothing left and start over. While throwing in some insults, talk about liberals, hoax, and Al Gore.

There are lots of reasonable arguments that you could have about global warming and man's influence. The people I mention are not the ones who will ever have that argument.

And though you will almost never change that kind of persons mind, when posting info against what they post you can change others who read it.

 

[Paul98]

A few posts back you said there was never a global cooling theory, now your calling it a "fringe scientific opinion", yet it was considered main stream enough to be in California text books. It's apparent that you don't know anything about it, you're simply pulling statements out of your ass because you never learned how to say "I don't know".

The majority of climate scientists were predicting global warming, though there were a reasonable number predicting cooling. As more data has come in it's gone more and more towards global warming.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

And for you Londo:

Neither makes any sense.

 

[xBiffx]

Neither makes any sense.

But which end of the turd is cleaner?

 

[xBiffx]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKWRRnS-BQ

Video is a perfect example of many viewpoints on this from the left. Thanks Rob for putting your position out there for all to laugh at. Dicaprio came in a close second with his display of idiocy/hypocrisy the other day.

To these people, its not about the environment, its not about saving the world, its not even about CO2. Those are all means to an end. Its about power and control. "We need laws" tells you all you need to know. When someone can simply make a choice to do something, or in this case (cell phone) not do something but they ignore that and simply state how the government is the answer, well, its no longer about the environment. The 'lets choose what's best for all of you, but not for me' mentality is also quite telling. He's all about choosing how all the plebeians should live but the ruling class gets a different set of rules. Rules that somehow won't apply or simply won't affect the ruling class as much too.

First it was the 16th amendment and the IRS. Then came Social Security. Now we have Obamacare. Next it will be cap and trade/carbon taxes. All means to an end. Control, control, control. Whenever there is an opportunity, people of Rob's ilk are all about exploiting it to reach this end goal. What better way to "solve" a perceived "problem" than to expand big government with a giant money grab. Problem is, it never actually solves anything and you are almost always left with the unintended consequences to deal with.

This will be no different. Again, thanks for that Rob.

 

[bshole]

First it was the 16th amendment and the IRS. Then came Social Security. Now we have Obamacare. Next it will be cap and trade/carbon taxes. All means to an end. Control, control, control. Whenever there is an opportunity, people of Rob's ilk are all about exploiting it to reach this end goal. What better way to "solve" a perceived "problem" than to expand big government with a giant money grab. Problem is, it never actually solves anything and you are almost always left with the unintended consequences to deal with.

This will be no different. Again, thanks for that Rob.

Social Security is a great thing.
ObamaCare is a great thing.

You are undermining your argument!

 

[fskimospy]

A few posts back you said there was never a global cooling theory, now your calling it a "fringe scientific opinion", yet it was considered main stream enough to be in California text books. It's apparent that you don't know anything about it, you're simply pulling statements out of your ass because you never learned how to say "I don't know".

Actually, I never said it was never a theory, I said it was never a mainstream theory. Now I'm continuing to call it a fringe scientific opinion, yes. During the period where "global cooling" was popularized by the media, only a small fraction of papers supported cooling while the vast majority supported... you guessed it...global warming.

Hell, just a quick reading of the wiki article would tell you that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So not only do you not know what you're talking about in regards to global warming but you can't even read my posts correctly. Speaking of someone who never learned how to say "I don't know"...

 

[bshole]

Actually, I never said it was never a theory, I said it was never a mainstream theory. Now I'm continuing to call it a fringe scientific opinion, yes. During the period where "global cooling" was popularized by the media, only a small fraction of papers supported cooling while the vast majority supported... you guessed it...global warming.

Hell, just a quick reading of the wiki article would tell you that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So not only do you not know what you're talking about in regards to global warming but you can't even read my posts correctly. Speaking of someone who never learned how to say "I don't know"...

ROFLMFAO!!!!

This is a quote from Professor Hubert Lamb, the then director of climate research at the University of East Anglia in 1972. This is the same institute whose every word you now take as gospel truth. So they screwed the pooch in the 70s but NOW they are gods and cannot ever be wrong. You really can't make this shit up.

"The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years and even then it will not be as severe as the last great glacial period.

"We are past the best of the inter-glacial period which happened between 7,000 and 3,000 years ago.

"Ever since then we have been on a downhill float regarding temperature. There may be a few upward fluctuation from time to time but these are more than offset by the general downward trend."

He continues by saying, "We are on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries. The last 20 years of this century will be progressively colder. After that the climate may warm up again but only for a short period of decades."

 

[fskimospy]

ROFLMFAO!!!!

This is a quote from Professor Hubert Lamb, the then director of climate research at the University of East Anglia in 1972. This is the same institute whose every word you now take as gospel truth. So they screwed the pooch in the 70s but NOW they are gods and cannot ever be wrong. You really can't make this shit up.

[/FONT]

You realize how dumb you look when you try and take a quote from a single scientist and use it to argue against the position of the scientific community as a whole, right? Every post you make about global warming just makes you look more ignorant and more unhinged.

While you say your wife can't operate a stove correctly I'm still starting to think she was blessed with the brains in the family...

 

[bshole]

What I find staggeringly amusing is that along with the global cooling predictions came also predictions of catasrophe unless the government took action immediately. So whether they predict the global temperature goes up or down, they always predict MORE violent weather events and the need for IMMEDIATE government intervention. That hasn't changed a bit since they started this shit.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

 

[fskimospy]

What I find staggeringly amusing is that along with the global cooling predictions came also predictions of catasrophe unless the government took action immediately. So whether they predict the global temperature goes up or down, they always predict MORE violent weather events and the need for IMMEDIATE government intervention. That hasn't changed a bit since they started this shit.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

lol Steven Goddard.

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

This explains a lot.

 

[dphantom]

What I have been finding interesting is that most who deny global warming do the exact same thing. Post some article they read that they think is evidence against global warming such as it is cold in the US, or arctic ice has increased since 2012. They then are shown that what they list is not evidence against global warming. Then rather defending their position they simply ignore that and post another thing they think is evidence against global warming. It's funny because it continually changes, there will be some article that circulates through their circle of blogs and news sites. Then they all parrot that same thing. Once that changes they then parrot the next thing.

They simply continue to do this till they have nothing left and start over. While throwing in some insults, talk about liberals, hoax, and Al Gore.

There are lots of reasonable arguments that you could have about global warming and man's influence. The people I mention are not the ones who will ever have that argument.

And though you will almost never change that kind of persons mind, when posting info against what they post you can change others who read it.

What you absolutely do not understand is this:

I AGREE there is global warming. Period.

What I am seeing in reviewing the literature away from the political debate is a real uncertainty over how much man is adding to global warming.

Do not try to frame me in with a handful of so called deniers. There are very few if any scientists who disagree with global warming. Your attempt to lump everyone into a "denier" category simply because we question the idea that man is the primary or even sole cause of all the warming that has taken place since the end of the LIA is categorically a bankrupt position.

All it means is that the "warmists", you, cannot ever accept that natural influences MAY, just MAY, have more of an effect on our warming climate than man.

 

[unokitty]

Here's one certain sign that something is very wrong with our collective mind: Everybody uses a word, but no one is clear on what the word actually means.

One of those words is "science."

Everybody uses it. Science says this, science says that. You must vote for me because science. You must buy this because science. You must hate the folks over there because science.

Look, science is really important. And yet, who among us can easily provide a clear definition of the word "science" that matches the way people employ the term in everyday life?

So let me explain what science actually is. Science is the process through which we derive reliable predictive rules through controlled experimentation. That's the science that gives us airplanes and flu vaccines and the Internet. But what almost everyone means when he or she says "science" is something different.

Previously, Climate Change 'scientists' were Global Warming 'scientists.' They wrote papers, made models, and predicted 'Global Warming.'

And they were wrong. There was a pause in 'Global Warming' that their models hadn't predicted.

Instead of trying to understand why their predictions were wrong, they simply changed the name to 'Climate Change.' Only problem is that that is a meaningless term. Climate is dynamic. Always has been.

What 'Climate Change' actually is, is a political movement that wants to transfer billion of dollars from first world countries to politicians in third world countries. As an example, look at the Kyoto Protocol that "reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects."


Like any scheme to raise taxes, politicians love it.

But the reality is that transferring billions of dollars to politicians in the third world won't have any impact on the climate... Nonetheless, if you think that the 'solution' is to raise taxes and charge poor people more for electricity, you might be a Climate Change Hero!

Just be prepared to open your wallet wider for the 'Climate Change' politicians.

Uno

 

[Paul98]

Previously, Climate Change 'scientists' were Global Warming 'scientists.' They wrote papers, made models, and predicted 'Global Warming.'

And they were wrong. There was a pause in 'Global Warming' that their models hadn't predicted.

Instead of trying to understand why their predictions were wrong, they simply changed the name to 'Climate Change.' Only problem is that that is a meaningless term. Climate is dynamic. Always has been.

What 'Climate Change' actually is, is a political movement that wants to transfer billion of dollars from first world countries to politicians in third world countries. As an example, look at the Kyoto Protocol that "reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects."


Like any scheme to raise taxes, politicians love it.

But the reality is that transferring billions of dollars to politicians in the third world won't have any impact on the climate... Nonetheless, if you think that the 'solution' is to raise taxes and charge poor people more for electricity, you might be a Climate Change Hero!

Just be prepared to open your wallet wider for the 'Climate Change' politicians.

Uno

Yeah no...

 

[Paul98]

What you absolutely do not understand is this:

I AGREE there is global warming. Period.

What I am seeing in reviewing the literature away from the political debate is a real uncertainty over how much man is adding to global warming.

Do not try to frame me in with a handful of so called deniers. There are very few if any scientists who disagree with global warming. Your attempt to lump everyone into a "denier" category simply because we question the idea that man is the primary or even sole cause of all the warming that has taken place since the end of the LIA is categorically a bankrupt position.

All it means is that the "warmists", you, cannot ever accept that natural influences MAY, just MAY, have more of an effect on our warming climate than man.

I find it interesting that you responded to this post, I said most deniers. If you aren't making these stupid arguments and are willing defend your position this post doesn't apply to you.

Where as I don't know of anyone who says natural influences have little effect on our climate. Just as I have stated over and over again in many of these threads. There is man made global warming and natural changes, you add these together and you get the over all effect.

 

[Darwin333]

Coal is one of the largest artificial producers of radioactive waste in the world and even China is shutting down their coal industry.

Ironically more energy is lost from said radioactive waste than is gained in burning the coal in the first place.

We need to build some more damn nuke plants already, preferably Thorium but frankly I'll take anything modern at this point.

 

[Moonbeam]

The CBD, the result of deep conditioning, is terrified of being manipulated. This fear of becoming what you are makes for great hilarity for those not so affected and some
Profound paranoia for those who are.