Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 'conspiracy by scientists' is on your side... it goes something like 'If scientists don't find evidence of AGW then they won't get paid', therefore thousands of climatologists around the world are fudging their data so that they can earn 90k/year and help Al Gore get rich. There are always liberal coverups going on in NASA and at the IPCC and all around the world.
...and, since so many of these CAGW scientists insult, ridicule and malign everyone who does not support their views, they need to keep their reputations intact by keeping the scam of catastrophic man-made global warming alive. Failing to do so would see their professional reputations and careers destroyed.
When you have people like Heidi Cullen advocating that "the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their ‘Seal of Approval’ for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe."
People like her need to ensure their views on CAGW are never challenged, or else they will look like complete fools.
Umm.... my response was to the obvious 'industrialization of the 1880's' vs. the 1700's when it started in England, parts of Europe, and exponetionally here, and more recently in China and India.
Or, in short, it was a humorous response to the original contention of the OP, and the article cited.
My comment was presented in a general way, not targeted as some kind of a rebuttal towards you in any way.
I wonder how much of that effort has become un done? That gas leak in the LA area went from Oct 23 to Feb.That had to have a huge impact in the atmosphere and I was very happy that there was not a fire/explosion we dodged a bullet there. How about all the bombing of oil fields in the ME and Isis tanker trucks? I can go on and on, in other words carbon taxing is not the answer. Nothing will change until green energy becomes affordable to even the poor and can compete on a level playing field with other energy sources. Taxing everyone and giving the gvt more money will not solve the problem. Plus I think we are going to have a major war and a carbon tax is not cleaning that up.
Not to mention that just one teeny active volcano put's more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in one year than all of mankind has done since the beginning of recorded time.
We gonna cap all active volcanos now? I'm glad I'm not going to be around to watch those idiotic attempts by a retarded mankind arrogantly thinking they're responsible for the retreat of just the latest ice age before we were even a legless amphibian.
One meteorite hit will make all of our efforts to pattern our climate a totally wasted endeavour.
I'm of the cadre of thinkers longing for a complete do-over so in that context, the sooner the better for the next great cataclysm. Earth shaking us off like a bad case of fleas would leave it better for the next colonists who might arrive being be of saner minds and higher ethics.
...and, since so many of these CAGW scientists insult, ridicule and malign everyone who does not support their views, they need to keep their reputations intact by keeping the scam of catastrophic man-made global warming alive. Failing to do so would see their professional reputations and careers destroyed.
When you have people like Heidi Cullen advocating that "the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their ‘Seal of Approval’ for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe."
People like her need to ensure their views on CAGW are never challenged, or else they will look like complete fools.
The thing about that is-- I have no idea who she is and I don't really care. I can't control what everyone says and just because someone makes a comment like that, it doesn't automatically follow that I think it's relevant to the issue.
But if I were to resort to your side's tactics, I would be posting threads on here about how she is mocking the AMS, how they're a joke, how their hoax has been exposed, etc. Sort of like the recent thread about Lindzen making fun of the 97% consensus. The science doesn't support your side, so you need to post threads about people making snide remarks and other **** that doesn't matter. Without fail, there is at least one aggressively ignorant person who just wants to remind himself how he feels about 'liberals', and doesn't even possess the most superficial understanding of the issue.
What you see from 'my side' is threads like 'Warmest Winter in years' or 'Sea Level Rise is Accelerating'... sciencey threads that actually have some meat to them and aren't just about mocking things I don't agree with.
So yeah, tell me more about how you're so oppressed.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, it's a trace gas, which only makes up 0.04% of our planet's total atmosphere. Water vapor and methane are the major greenhouse gases and are significantly more influential than CO2.
Humans are responsible for about 3% of of that 0.04%, in the atmosphere. The natural functions of planet earth make up the other 97% of CO2.
People like the OP want to try to scare us all to death. Trying to convince us that a 3% increase to the 0.04% of CO2, is not only causing the planet to warm up, but that minuscule percent increase is catastrophically warming the planet.
CO2 is a DRIVER of climate change, not necessarily a direct SOURCE of the warming.
Even if it doesn't add as much warmth as methane and water vapor, CO2 lasts hundreds or thousands of years in the atmosphere, and even the current imbalance will probably take thousands of years to correct itself naturally. That extra bit of warmth caused by the imbalance is what is triggering the feedback loops that are bringing the rapid warming.
Methane would dissipate in a few decades, water vapor in a few days... but CO2 causes long-term, permanent changes to the climate-- that's why it's the focus, because it triggers feedback loops.
The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum is a historical example of a rise in CO2 levels causing climate change, even though we're currently releasing 7 times as much CO2 per year as was released naturally at that time:
The 'conspiracy by scientists' is on your side... it goes something like 'If scientists don't find evidence of AGW then they won't get paid', therefore thousands of climatologists around the world are fudging their data so that they can earn 90k/year and help Al Gore get rich. There are always liberal coverups going on in NASA and at the IPCC and all around the world.
I don't see anyone using the word 'conservatards' here. They do say 'deniers', though.
Also, my #6 is mostly about the 'climate change is natural' people who would easily believe that all climate change is caused by angry unicorns before they would ever consider the possibility that a known greenhouse gas could ever be responsible, and will offer up any number of outlandish theories as if they're credible.
There really isn't so much debate about whether or not global warming is natural or to what extent humans are influencing the climate. We know that the warming is remarkably fast, we know that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, we know that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased, we know the extra carbon does not have the low-carbon 14 signature that comes from natural sources... so there really is no other explanation.
Of course, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, but it is the main driver of the greenhouse effect. It's not complicated, the evidence is overwhelming, and there really is no mystery at all.
This is why these threads are so frustrating-- it's impossible to get past the same talking points with anyone because all they see is the liberal plot to steal their money, 'it is cold today' and/or 'this guy from the Cato institute thinks AGW is a scam... LOL liberals'.
From my 'observations', both sides are dug in... the evidence isn't 'overwhelming', it is compelling. On the other hand, the body of 'evidence' is still, in regards to reliable data, in it's infancy.
60 odd years ago, humanity wasn't aware of the southern oscillation, nor have any idea of it's impact on global climate. Yet, then a buzzword or 2 comes into play and now people irrefutably know and it's unquestionably man-made.
So one side, with good intentions, makes outrageous claims about hurricanes, sea levels, etc...
The other side refutes with just as good intentions....
And meanwhile, potable water continues to decrease, desertification from water resource (leave aside the anthropogenic claims as that's still being studied) utilization (like the entire Southwest's reliance on the Colorado) grows, all of which are more impactful than 'why' is the climate changing. People create 'carbon' markets to feel good but with more loopholes than the tax system of the 70's, and, in regards to 'it's cold today'.... most reasonable people and scientists would look at the arctic and say: in 2014 we have a much larger expanse of ice than normal... in 2015, it's not. I don't know, we need to keep measuring before proclaiming anything.
Before people weigh in on 'we definitively' know about warming atmospheric temperatures, the methodologies today are in serious contention, let alone thermometers, or even ice core samples, as definitive proof.
I'd contend that hyperbolous claims and 'demonizing' from those who wholeheartedly believe in AGW is what caused the pendulum effect: call someone a name long enough from incomplete evidence and one creates an enemy vs. a possible ally. And now, many on both sides tune out completely to the other.
That's why I put the Inconvenient Truth comment in there as it's, what, 11 years old now? Outdated (thought people would get the humor on that one).
The thing about that is-- I have no idea who she is and I don't really care. I can't control what everyone says and just because someone makes a comment like that, it doesn't automatically follow that I think it's relevant to the issue.
But if I were to resort to your side's tactics, I would be posting threads on here about how she is mocking the AMS, how they're a joke, how their hoax has been exposed, etc. Sort of like the recent thread about Lindzen making fun of the 97% consensus. The science doesn't support your side, so you need to post threads about people making snide remarks and other **** that doesn't matter.
But no, instead all you see on here is threads like 'Warmest Winter in years' or 'Sea Level Rise is Accelerating'... so yeah, tell me more about how you're so oppressed.
Yes, we know, your side believes the earth's climate temperature normal occurred the day you were born. Any change from that will be a catastrophe, and is proof that humans caused that change.
On the day you and the other climate scientists were born, give or take a few decades, that was considered climate temperature normal
Also, on the day you and the other climate scientists were born, give or take a few decades, sea level normal was also attained.
Not only that, but the planet's natural carbon cycle ability peaked on the day you and the other climate scientists were born, give or take a few decades.
I could see one of those events occurring on the day you were born, but the odds were astronomically high that two of those events would have occurred. I mean, how many billions of years old is the earth? Having all three of these events occurring the day you and the other climate scientists were born, give or take a few decades, it's got to be one in a billion.
CO2 is a DRIVER of climate change, not necessarily a direct SOURCE of the warming.
Even if it doesn't add as much warmth as methane and water vapor, CO2 lasts hundreds or thousands of years in the atmosphere, and even the current imbalance will probably take thousands of years to correct itself naturally. That extra bit of warmth caused by the imbalance is what is triggering the feedback loops that are bringing the rapid warming.
Methane would dissipate in a few decades, water vapor in a few days... but CO2 causes long-term, permanent changes to the climate-- that's why it's the focus, because it triggers feedback loops.
The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum is a historical example of a rise in CO2 levels causing climate change, even though we're currently releasing 7 times as much CO2 per year as was released naturally at that time:
In this instance, CO2 triggered feedback loops over a period of 20,000 years and completely changed the planet forever.
Like I said, you guys think you know what the earth is capable of. You think the earth carbon cycle has been overwhelmed, starting on the day you were born. Yup, that's it, on the day you were born, the earth's capacity to handle any more CO2, hit it's peak. Now, that 3% of CO2 produced by humans will just keep building up, because the planet's ability to cope with it has expired.
Like I said, you guys think you know what the earth is capable of. You think the earth carbon cycle has been overwhelmed, starting on the day you were born. Yup, that's it, on the day you were born, the earth's capacity to handle any more CO2, hit it's peak. Now, that 3% of CO2 produced by humans will just keep building up, because the planet's ability to cope with it has expired.
I'm going to ignore the fact that you think you're smarter than NASA and explain to you why what you think I believe is wrong. It's wrong in terms of it being what I believe, wrong in terms of what 'other climate scientists' believe, and wrong in terms of reality in general.
I never said there was such a thing as a 'normal' climate. There is such a thing as a relatively stable climate with managable variations that won't cause mass extinctions. I gave you an example of a precedent for a warming scenario similar, but not identical to the one we're currently experiencing. It was a period of mass extinctions. There is no known precedent for this particular pattern of warming, but the CO2 release in this warming event is happening FASTER than the one where mass extinctions occurred.
I don't know why you're talking about my birthday, or the birthdays of 'other climate scientists'. AGW began the day we started dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. It accelerated when we began dumping even more. That's the theory. It has nothing to do with me personally and I have no idea WTF you're talking about when you say that.
There is also such a thing as the climate that would have existed without AGW-- it exists as series of calculations based on data and what we know of all the main natural climate drivers, and it's one of the ways that we know the warming we're experiencing is primarily manmade.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Earth will have no response to the extra CO2, as if there's some sort of acceptable amount of CO2 that can be put into the air. I would guess that's probably true, but the absolutely MASSIVE amounts of CO2 we are releasing are not an acceptable amount. The idea that releasing this much CO2 will have no effect is something that not only history has shown to be blatantly false, but which, if true, leaves a lot of unexplained warming to be accounted for.
Why exactly is the best possible explanation not good enough? Oh right, because it doesn't click with your politics...
I never said there was such a thing as a 'normal' climate. There is such a thing as a relatively stable climate with managable variations that won't cause mass extinctions. I gave you an example of a precedent for a warming scenario similar, but not identical to the one we're currently experiencing. It was a period of mass extinctions. There is no known precedent for this particular pattern of warming, but the CO2 release in this warming event is happening FASTER than the one where mass extinctions occurred.
Are you referring to the pleistocene mega-fauna extinction? I missed that thread?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
