Global warming still happening

[stillblue]

For your consideration.

How Earth´s Orbital Shift Shaped the Sahara

Tropical climate in the Antarctic: Palm trees once thrived on today’s icy coasts 52 million years ago

Also, please stop using climate change and AGW interchangeably. They are two completely different concepts.

How were humans adapting 52 million years ago?

You are joking right???

Of course, everybody know the universe is less than 7000 years old.

 

[chunkymonster]

I do a study on tornadoes in Iowa and I conclude that there is a statistical anomaly indicating that there are far more tornadoes because of an abnormal shift in this that and the other thing, all climate factors. My study is on is there climate change not why is there climate change. the study is relevant in that in is further of the existance of climate change.

Climate change is not at the center of the AGW debate, the cause of climate change is. It is universally accepted that the climate has, was, is, and will always change. That is why "climate change" and AGW are not interchangeable and do not mean the same thing; of which, the term "climate change" has been absconded by the AGW zealots to make the unknowing believe they are one in the same.

As to that bizarre article linked above. These don't specifically state co2 and man are responsible so count them out even though they may document the changes and these are out because they've published before and are clearly biased. WTF??? Because they've written before they don't count anymore? Tell you what, try and go to your voters registrar and tell then as a new voter you should get to pick because those that voted last time are clearly biased. How do you reckin tha't go over?

You're missing the point. Whether the climate is changing or not is not the debate here. The debate is the cause of climate change. So, if we trust that the scientists performed due diligence in their studies and 66% of them make no mention of CO2 (which according to the researchers means that the cause of climate change can not be determined) in their conclusion, then yes, count them out as there is no basis to use their findings to support AGW or CO2 as the cause of climate change. As a matter of fact, given the conclusion that the cause of climate change could not be determined, those findings should not be used by either side of the debate.

 

[musical marv]

A good start would to be elect government officials that are able to see reason. A new and improved kyoto protocol that the U.S actually participates in, is also critical.

What about Al Gore he is considered knowledgeable about Global Warming?

 

[chunkymonster]

What about Al Gore he is considered knowledgeable about Global Warming?

Yes! Al Gore is the consummate expert on many things and global warming is at the center of his wheel house!

Actually, Al Gore does get credit for bringing the hysteria of man's eminent demise due to burning fossil fuels and rising CO2 into the conscience of the general public. At the same time, the AGW supporters have got to be regret having his name associated with their cause.

 

[johnsonma]

So, if we trust that the scientists performed due diligence in their studies and 66% of them make no mention of CO2 (which according to the researchers means that the cause of climate change can not be determined) in their conclusion, then yes, count them out as there is no basis to use their findings to support AGW or CO2 as the cause of climate change. As a matter of fact, given the conclusion that the cause of climate change could not be determined, those findings should not be used by either side of the debate.

Your logic is flawed in the irrational jump you made on the 66%.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

 

[j0ee]

The world suffered much worse...the earth is a survivor....we're too insignificant to make a difference.

 

[chunkymonster]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html

So, if we trust that the scientists performed due diligence in their studies and 66% of them make no mention of CO2 (which according to the researchers means that the cause of climate change can not be determined) in their conclusion, then yes, count them out as there is no basis to use their findings to support AGW or CO2 as the cause of climate change. As a matter of fact, given the conclusion that the cause of climate change could not be determined, those findings should not be used by either side of the debate.

Your logic is flawed in the irrational jump you made on the 66%.

We found that about two-thirds of papers didn't express a position on the subject in the abstract, which confirms that we were conservative in our initial abstract ratings. This result isn't surprising for two reasons: 1) most journals have strict word limits for their abstracts, and 2) frankly, every scientist doing climate research knows humans are causing global warming. There's no longer a need to state something so obvious. For example, would you expect every geological paper to note in its abstract that the Earth is a spherical body that orbits the sun?

This result was also predicted by Oreskes (2007), which noted that scientists

"...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"

However, according to the author self-ratings, nearly two-thirds of the papers in our survey do express a position on the subject somewhere in the paper.

The follow up article that you link and quote above effectively does nothing more than reshuffle the deck and juggle the numbers in an sorry attempt to support the false narrative that a majority of scientists support AGW.

To paraphrase Brian Fantana...

It's called [strike]Sex Panther[/strike] Anthropomorphic Global Warming by [strike]Odeon[/strike] IPCC...They've done studies, you know. [strike]60%[/strike] 33% of the time, [strike]it works every time.[/strike] scientists agree that CO2 is causing climate change...

 

[catswold]

I don't know if it's global warming or something, but i didn't see any winter day this year.
We are in february, i live in the North of France where it used to be cold, and we didn't have any day under 0°C.
I've never seen that before.
When i take a look at my garden, i can see bees and buds.

Climate changes are naturals. But i'm sure that mankind has something to do with this one.

And as usual, some countries do not give a damn and will continue to do as they like, spitting in the mouths of others.
But do not worry, we will continue to require more effort to those who provide the most.
And those who don't care about will continue to rot the planet, reaping profits.

Humanity is stupid.
Oldman talks about Fukushima, and he is right but for the wrong reasons.
What has been the impact of Fukushima on the planet? some countries morons decided to halt all nuclear power generation because "Fukushima showed that it is dangerous." (this is dangerous in a region of high seismic activity and when there is a tsunami, assholes!)
What did they do then? they have imported Australian coal astronomical amount to compensate nuclear.
Basically, they stopped nuclear power, which is now the cleanest way to produce electricity for use highly polluting fossil fuels. Congratulations bands morons.

The thing is there is no evidence that natural causes within the climate could have been solely responsible for the changes we are seeing now. Sure the drought could be part of a cycle. What about the rising sea levels? What about the acidity of the oceans? What about the shrinking of the ice caps? What about the unique weather patterns we are seeing? If you look at the entire situation it become painfully obvious that we are responsible for a lot of it.

"Different influences on climate have different signatures in climate records. These unique fingerprints are easier to see by probing beyond a single number (such as the average temperature of Earth’s surface), and looking instead at the geographical and seasonal patterns of climate change. The observed patterns of surface warming, temperature changes through the atmosphere, increases in ocean heat content, increases in atmospheric moisture, sea level rise, and increased melting of land and sea ice also match the patterns scientists expect to see due to rising levels of CO2 and other human-induced changes"

Most of humanity is stupid, maybe we deserve whats coming next.

They have not investigated natural causes. The vast bulk of all research, from the very beginning was directed solely at proving mankind was responsible. Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

The fact is, there is very little evidence for human activity being the source of global warming. Nothing but an apparent correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and global temperatures and correlation is not the same as causation. The data they have only spans about 150 years everything else is through "proxies" which are inexact at best and sometimes contradictory, as in the case of the last 59 years of tree-ring data, which if included in the famous Michael Mann hockey-stick graph would have shown COOLING during a period that we know was warming.

Over the last 17 years, global temperatures have remained stable, but atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled--the proposed mechanism has failed.

A climatological database of 150 years is insufficient in a system that has been in constant flux over the past two-and-a-half billion years, with at least 5 major ice ages and long periods that were essentially ice-free--including at the higher latitudes. In fact, we are currently in the latest inter-glacial period, a time when temperatures naturally rise.

There is no evidence that man has any major effect on the planet's climate.

 

[johnsonma]

The follow up article that you link and quote above effectively does nothing more than reshuffle the deck and juggle the numbers in an sorry attempt to support the false narrative that a majority of scientists support AGW.

To paraphrase Brian Fantana...

It's called [strike]Sex Panther[/strike] Anthropomorphic Global Warming by [strike]Odeon[/strike] IPCC...They've done studies, you know. [strike]60%[/strike] 33% of the time, [strike]it works every time.[/strike] scientists agree that CO2 is causing climate change...

So your answer to my post is nothing short of ignoring it? You make the assumption that no position equals a vote of no support of AGW with this is CLEARLY not the case. I did not refer to numbers at all in my post. Again you pull unsubstantiated comments from out of no where. The idea I presented was that no position studies do no address AGW directly because it is pretty much settled within the field, even if you refuse to believe it.

 

[johnsonma]

They have not investigated natural causes. The vast bulk of all research, from the very beginning was directed solely at proving mankind was responsible. Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

The fact is, there is very little evidence for human activity being the source of global warming. Nothing but an apparent correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and global temperatures and correlation is not the same as causation. The data they have only spans about 150 years everything else is through "proxies" which are inexact at best and sometimes contradictory, as in the case of the last 59 years of tree-ring data, which if included in the famous Michael Mann hockey-stick graph would have shown COOLING during a period that we know was warming.

Over the last 17 years, global temperatures have remained stable, but atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled--the proposed mechanism has failed.

A climatological database of 150 years is insufficient in a system that has been in constant flux over the past two-and-a-half billion years, with at least 5 major ice ages and long periods that were essentially ice-free--including at the higher latitudes. In fact, we are currently in the latest inter-glacial period, a time when temperatures naturally rise.

There is no evidence that man has any major effect on the planet's climate.

2010 had the hottest global temperature recorded ever. Not only that but the sun has been in a cooling trend at yet we had the hottest year ever. What does that tell you? You say we do not account for natural causes but that is a complete fallacy. The only factor that has been observed that could possibly correlate with the rising temperatures is manmade CO2 output.

What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.

Ice core samples give is a pretty good idea of what caused previous changes in the climate. None of those causation's are happening now. Instead the evidence all points to CO2. By all means, ignore the evidence if that is what you want to do.

In response to your link.

The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

 

[johnsonma]

I would be careful linking anything from Roy Spencer as well. It seems he has a nasty preposition to altering his data to fit his needs. The only way he can get published is by using journals that know nothing about the subject.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

 

[chunkymonster]

So your answer to my post is nothing short of ignoring it? You make the assumption that no position equals a vote of no support of AGW with this is CLEARLY not the case. I did not refer to numbers at all in my post. Again you pull unsubstantiated comments from out of no where. The idea I presented was that no position studies do no address AGW directly because it is pretty much settled within the field, even if you refuse to believe it.

Stating that the papers that concluded no opinion do not directly address AGW "because it is settled science" is contrary to the conclusion of the papers themselves, because according to the source you linked, not having an opinion is defined as "the cause of climate change could not be determined".

If the papers conclude they have no opinion, and according to the source you linked, not having an opinion is defined as "the cause of climate change could not be determined", in what scientific method or logical thought does not having an opinion support AGW as the cause of climate change?

 

[catswold]

They have not investigated natural causes. The vast bulk of all research, from the very beginning was directed solely at proving mankind was responsible. Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

The fact is, there is very little evidence for human activity being the source of global warming. Nothing but an apparent correlation between the rise in CO2 levels and global temperatures and correlation is not the same as causation. The data they have only spans about 150 years everything else is through "proxies" which are inexact at best and sometimes contradictory, as in the case of the last 59 years of tree-ring data, which if included in the famous Michael Mann hockey-stick graph would have shown COOLING during a period that we know was warming.

Over the last 17 years, global temperatures have remained stable, but atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled--the proposed mechanism has failed.

A climatological database of 150 years is insufficient in a system that has been in constant flux over the past two-and-a-half billion years, with at least 5 major ice ages and long periods that were essentially ice-free--including at the higher latitudes. In fact, we are currently in the latest inter-glacial period, a time when temperatures naturally rise.

There is no evidence that man has any major effect on the planet's climate.

2010 had the hottest global temperature recorded ever. Not only that but the sun has been in a cooling trend at yet we had the hottest year ever. What does that tell you? You say we do not account for natural causes but that is a complete fallacy. The only factor that has been observed that could possibly correlate with the rising temperatures is manmade CO2 output.

What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.

Ice core samples give is a pretty good idea of what caused previous changes in the climate. None of those causation's are happening now. Instead the evidence all points to CO2. By all means, ignore the evidence if that is what you want to do.

In response to your link.

The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

I would be careful linking anything from Roy Spencer as well. It seems he has a nasty preposition to altering his data to fit his needs. The only way he can get published is by using journals that know nothing about the subject.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

Let me repeat, There is very little evidence to indicate mankind is the primary source of climate change. Virtually all money invested in investigating climate change has been directed at proving man was the source. Natural causes have been almost completely ignored.

For any real scientist, the very first thought as to what is causing an apparent change in a natural system as hugely complex as climate would be to search for a natural cause, not an external cause.

Here are the hard facts. We have only about 135 years of actual global temperature data and some of that is pretty spotty in the beginning. AGW asserts an approximate 1°C increase between 1880 and 1997, when global warming ended. Proxies for temperature are only approximations and there is nowhere near the level of precision one would need to proclaim that a rise of 1°C over a century is at all unusual.

Precision is one of the biggest stumbling blocks there is and it is simply ignored. You cannot attribute direct measurement precision to proxy data. Michael Mann's famous tree-ring divergence problem is illustrative. When Mann presented his famous hockey-stick to the world, he omitted telling anyone that his tree-ring proxy data cut off over the last several decades. The reason, the tree ring data showed global cooling during a time we know the earth was warming. Anyone wish to assert that these proxies are accurate to within 1°C? If they aren't, then everything that the AGW touts have asserted is wrong.

They have hence attempted to explain that away as being due to "global dimming." Wow, a brand new paradigm has suddenly been introduced from out of someone's posterior to explain away one of the most glaring flaws in the hypothesis of AGW/CC (there have been occasions of global dimming, most notably following volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, but it is a temporary effect and global brightening has been occurring of late).

The main problem remains the fact that these so-called "scientists" are attempting to make epochal proclamations based on a century and a half of data and some "proxies," the accuracy of which is questionable and the precision of which is problematical.

As for your assertion that "The only factor that has been observed that could possibly correlate with the rising temperatures is manmade CO2 output." Says who? If you don't look for it, how do you know it isn't there?

The climate is a hugely complex, chaotic system, far more complex than these scientists are willing to admit. They see surface phenomenon and then look for man-made causes virtually to the exclusion of nature. This just backfired on them over the Antarctic glacier melt, when it was discovered that the acceleration of melting was due, not to "global warming," but to magma migration beneath the ocean's surface heating the crust and melting the ice. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Finally, as for Dr. Roy Spencer . . . you're actually using ThinkProgress as an authoritative source? I mean, REALLY? Well, I'll just let Dr. Roy respond, if you dare to read it: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/

The data are "corrected," the models are "tweaked" with each new data set, the proxies are imprecise and merely approximations unsuitable for making projections or predictions, the "scientists" conspired to prevent skeptics from being allowed to publish, and every time a flaw is pointed out, the critic is attacked personally, lied about and another "explanation" (some would say crackpot hypothesis) pops up and the AGW Faithful just keep lapping up the Kool-Aid without taking the time to critically examine their explanations.

Whatever is happening out there, it has been observed on 6 or 7 other planetary bodies in the solar system, so it's doubtful that Uncle Chuck and his F-350 4X4 Dually with his camper bed cover and bass boat trailer attached, blasting hell-for-leather down the interstate had much to do with it.

The thing about chaotic systems, like the earth's climate is that they can go through long periods of apparent stability and then suddenly swing wildly along one axis for a while before returning to another period of apparent stability. That fact and the massive complexity of the entire "Gaia system"--the biosphere, climate, geology, etc--makes the unparalleled arrogance and certainty of the AGW advocates totally unwarranted and renders the entire question moot at this point until we can produce a better understanding of the entire system.

The law of unexpected consequences urges patience and better, more open research. Remember, science is never "settled" and anyone who makes that assertion has lost all credibility. If the debate is "over," then it's not science, it's politically motivated dogma.

 

[catswold]

I would be careful linking anything from Roy Spencer as well. It seems he has a nasty preposition to altering his data to fit his needs. The only way he can get published is by using journals that know nothing about the subject.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/

 

[stillblue]

They have not investigated natural causes. The vast bulk of all research, from the very beginning was directed solely at proving mankind was responsible. Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

Absolutely, nature contributes the bulk and Mother Nature is used to dealing with it. But, man has added to what nature contributes and we've reached a tipping point.

An analogy. Let's say in the spring when the snows are melting and the Mississippi is high everyone from Wisconsin and Minnesota heads to the shores and pisses in the river at the same time. Nature provided the bulk of the flow and Mother Nature was dealing with it but man added just enough to cause flooding in St. Louis.

 

[chunkymonster]

An analogy. Let's say in the spring when the snows are melting and the Mississippi is high everyone from Wisconsin and Minnesota heads to the shores and pisses in the river at the same time. Nature provided the bulk of the flow and Mother Nature was dealing with it but man added just enough to cause flooding in St. Louis.

Pissing in the Mississippi...hahahahaha...It's time to put down the ganja pipe and slowly back away...

 

[wanamingo]

Aside from the overwhelming consensus that people are certainly not helping climate change I fail to see why not shitting in your back yard is such a bad things. For arguments sake even if the planet is going through a natural cycle completely independent of humans (Again there is more than enough info showing we are at the very least affecting our environment) why is it a bad thing to not want to rely on other countries for energy? Why is it a bad thing to minimize pollution? Why is it a bad thing to make more efficient use of our resources? Why is it a bad thing to limit or remove known carcinogens from our air and water? Why is it a bad thing to not want all sorts of shit that has adverse health and economic effects out of our living space?

I just dont get it besides the global warming there are so many reasons to move to alternative fuels it shouldnt even matter. Its like arguing over whether to leave by the front door or the back when your house is on fire, it doesnt matter since both views lead to the same place. Again it makes no sense that you wouldnt hedge your bets, you cant guarantee 100% we arent doing serious damage to the environment, but there is a chance and even if its a small chance that we are as stewards of this place we have an obligation not to fuck it up.

Most of these arguments seem made out of the thought that someone is lying for political or monetary gain and that is the only reason. And if you follow that thought it must also be applied in the opposite direction, people who want to blame climate change on everything but people must have a political or financial gain from the outcome.

 

[wanamingo]

Armchair scientists if you can disprove anthropogenic global warming you can win a 10k$ bounty. So get to it, or maybe we should just link those scientists to this thread?

http://io9.com/scientist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-cli-1595320736

 

[johnsonma]

An analogy. Let's say in the spring when the snows are melting and the Mississippi is high everyone from Wisconsin and Minnesota heads to the shores and pisses in the river at the same time. Nature provided the bulk of the flow and Mother Nature was dealing with it but man added just enough to cause flooding in St. Louis.

Pissing in the Mississippi...hahahahaha...It's time to put down the ganja pipe and slowly back away...

Its an apt analogy, I'm guessing you couldn't comprehend it? Basically, while nature does control the majority of the climate conditions and cycles, the changes we introduce stress the limits of this control and lead to consequences down the line.

 

[catswold]

Armchair scientists if you can disprove anthropogenic global warming you can win a 10k$ bounty. So get to it, or maybe we should just link those scientists to this thread?

http://io9.com/scientist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-cli-1595320736

LOL!!!

1. They haven't "proven" AGW. It is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonest to demand someone disprove what one cannot prove.

2. You can't prove a negative. Any "scientist" knows that fact.

It's up to you to prove AGW/CC. So far the claims aren't supported by the science. Assertion isn't fact and assumption isn't proof.

EDIT: Besides, I pretty much torpedoed the whole thing with the "precision" argument. You prove to me that those temperature proxies they use can produce numbers with sufficient precision (resolution) to assert that this rise we have experienced is in any way unusual. Again, if the limits of your resolution is +/- 2°C, you cannot assert a rise of ~1°C over 100 years is an outlier. It doesn't matter how many letters a scientist has behind his name, he is still constrained by that fact, because you cannot determine if the global temperature at some distant past was 15°C, 14°C, or 16°C.

 

[catswold]

Aside from the overwhelming consensus that people are certainly not helping climate change I fail to see why not shitting in your back yard is such a bad things. For arguments sake even if the planet is going through a natural cycle completely independent of humans (Again there is more than enough info showing we are at the very least affecting our environment) why is it a bad thing to not want to rely on other countries for energy? Why is it a bad thing to minimize pollution? Why is it a bad thing to make more efficient use of our resources? Why is it a bad thing to limit or remove known carcinogens from our air and water? Why is it a bad thing to not want all sorts of shit that has adverse health and economic effects out of our living space?

I just dont get it besides the global warming there are so many reasons to move to alternative fuels it shouldnt even matter. Its like arguing over whether to leave by the front door or the back when your house is on fire, it doesnt matter since both views lead to the same place. Again it makes no sense that you wouldnt hedge your bets, you cant guarantee 100% we arent doing serious damage to the environment, but there is a chance and even if its a small chance that we are as stewards of this place we have an obligation not to fuck it up.

Most of these arguments seem made out of the thought that someone is lying for political or monetary gain and that is the only reason. And if you follow that thought it must also be applied in the opposite direction, people who want to blame climate change on everything but people must have a political or financial gain from the outcome.

1. Science isn't about "consensus," it's about factual evidence.
2. There's very little evidence that mankind is affecting our environment in anything more than a marginal--statistically insignificant--way.

As to your strawman arguments:
". . . why is it a bad thing to not want to rely on other countries for energy? Why is it a bad thing to minimize pollution? Why is it a bad thing to make more efficient use of our resources? Why is it a bad thing to limit or remove known carcinogens from our air and water? Why is it a bad thing to not want all sorts of shit that has adverse health and economic effects out of our living space?"

No one has suggested any of the above, so why are you arguing about it? CO2 is not a "pollutant," it is a naturally occurring gas that is a by-product of all living creatures. We exhale CO2 and plants consume CO2.

Virtually every single advance that has occurred to advance human civilization has come from the efforts of private individuals and private enterprise, not as a result of a government mandate. We don't need government to dictate what should be produced.

When market demand is sufficient and the need is sufficiently great, private industry (quite often in the form a some clever, inventive individual) will provide the solution.

We don't need to senselessly throw trillions of dollars away when we already have an abundant, efficient, proven technology.

Finally, as for the financial gain, all of those researchers at all of those universities depend on grant money for their research and ultimately their careers. Federal grant money is denied to anyone wishing to research natural causes of AGW/CC. "Publish or perish" is the rule in universities.

Again, none of those in opposition is arguing for the government to spend tax-payer money to support them. They're just asking the government to stop spending that money in pursuit of the left's pet chimera.

 

[catswold]

Armchair scientists if you can disprove anthropogenic global warming you can win a 10k$ bounty. So get to it, or maybe we should just link those scientists to this thread?

http://io9.com/scientist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-cli-1595320736

An analogy. Let's say in the spring when the snows are melting and the Mississippi is high everyone from Wisconsin and Minnesota heads to the shores and pisses in the river at the same time. Nature provided the bulk of the flow and Mother Nature was dealing with it but man added just enough to cause flooding in St. Louis.

Pissing in the Mississippi...hahahahaha...It's time to put down the ganja pipe and slowly back away...

Its an apt analogy, I'm guessing you couldn't comprehend it? Basically, while nature does control the majority of the climate conditions and cycles, the changes we introduce stress the limits of this control and lead to consequences down the line.

LOL, the total volume of urine you're are proposing isn't enough to be detected in the water level. You appear to have little understanding of just how vast and self-regulating our planet's climatological system, of the size of the bodies of water and landmasses, or just how insignificant mankind's activities really are.

Your analogy doesn't hold water (sorry for the pun). First, you're suggesting a concerted effort to cause a temporary effect. That rise would be a one-time event affecting a localized phenomenon, not a global system. The proper analogy would be to study the effect of all those pissing people on the global water levels.

 

[catswold]

They have not investigated natural causes. The vast bulk of all research, from the very beginning was directed solely at proving mankind was responsible. Very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

Absolutely, nature contributes the bulk and Mother Nature is used to dealing with it. But, man has added to what nature contributes and we've reached a tipping point.

An analogy. Let's say in the spring when the snows are melting and the Mississippi is high everyone from Wisconsin and Minnesota heads to the shores and pisses in the river at the same time. Nature provided the bulk of the flow and Mother Nature was dealing with it but man added just enough to cause flooding in St. Louis.

How do you know "we've reached a tipping point?" The last 17 years have been a period of no warming, a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and, in spite of all the dire warning to the contrary, fewer major weather events. In the USA there hasn't been a major hurricane in over 8 years. The longest previous period we know of was over 3 years. Tornadic activity is at an historic low, the Arctic Ice Sheet is growing again as is the Antarctic ice.

 

[johnsonma]

@cats

You seem to be repeating talking points without presenting any evidence. The temperature records are about as solid as it gets, you saying otherwise only proves you have not researched it. Just check out some of the fact checking that has been done on the temp records.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

You saying there is very little evidence of AGW is like me saying the sun is purple. Just because I say it doesn't make it so. I'm sorry but all the evidence and research disagrees with you. The entire world disagrees with you, the only reason you are arguing in disagreement of AGW is because of propaganda and political deception.

There have been no natural events to compensate for the changes we are seeing. You seem to think that the climate changes for no discernible reason and this is a complete fallacy. There is always a trigger to the change. Some examples are solar output variations, volcanoes and asteroids. We cannot find any evidence of these examples. Not because we haven't looked, but because there are none. Nothing matches the changes we are seeing except the increase in CO2 emissions.

 

[wanamingo]

So let me get this straight. You dont have a problem with cleaning up the environment but see no reason to move away from fossil fuels? Its an inherently messy process, just look to the Exxon Valdez, multiple pipeline ruptures, the Horizon... Shit the gulf is screwed for a very very long time. If that's not reason enough to move away from fossil fuels im not sure what you want.

All I was trying to say that besides the climate change circle jerk the points arent mutually exclusive. Regardless of your position on AGW decreased CO2 production can only be a good thing in terms of renewable energy, not having to rely on other countries for energy, being energy independent. Its not like spilled milk, an oil spill can affect the environment for a very long time.

Most of what you posted seems anecdotal.

We don't need to senselessly throw trillions of dollars away when we already have an abundant, efficient, proven technology.

We already throw trillions away subsidizing this technology. Nothing like corporate welfare to get the gears of capitalism turning.

Finally, as for the financial gain, all of those researchers at all of those universities depend on grant money for their research and ultimately their careers. Federal grant money is denied to anyone wishing to research natural causes of AGW/CC. "Publish or perish" is the rule in universities.

Anecdotal to the max. You seem to be forgetting about peer review, where multiple people fact check, review and make sure the data provided supports the conclusions. Even if the consensus isnt as high as 97% its still a massive favor for AGW (Im pretty sure neither you nor me are scientists of any kind so we have to rely on those that are in the know). To show this lets look at a privately funded study, this one was funded by the Koch brothers (yes you read that correctly) http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Ive been trying to track down a link to the study itself and will provide as soon as I find it.

But there is a veritable cornucopia of peer reviewed studies out there from damn near every reliable source, but if your argument boils down to "But scientists lie to keep their jobs!" Then we have moved onto the court of popular opinion because surely scientists that find the opposite must be doing exactly the same thing so its all a moot point. Which would make being a climate denying scientist a very easy job, just take the millions the kochs and the corporatocracy throw at denying AGW and prove whatever those people want you to prove.

Im also all for the free market patching this system up but please look at the amount of money traditional energy companies are receiving, does this count as open capitalism? Is it acceptable for oil companies to buy up patents for new battery technology using these subsidies?