Dubner Embraces ClimateGate: 'Everybody's Scared To Be A Skeptic'

[rugbyguy59]

Phosphorus in just one person’s urine would be close to the amount needed to fertilize the food supply for one person. So why not recycle urine? NoMix toilets have been invented to allow for the collection of urine separate from solid wastes, allowing P and N to be recovered and used as fertilizer. Crop biotechnologists are exploring ways to produce plants that dramatically increase the efficiency with which they use phosphorus, reducing the amount of phosphorus needed.

[rugbyguy59]

You should always doubt people who have to start by creating a conspiracy of thousands of scientists going back 150 years and many different national governments even when parties changed. And especially when the conspiracy has to include early migrating birds, melting glaciers, early blooming flowers, not to mention winters warming more than summers and nights warming more than days.

Since they can't focus on the science they have to attack the scientists.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 How about a dozen or so going back only 20 years? It's you guys who can't focus on the science. As soon as anyone brings up the objections by the real heavy hitters in the game, like Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, etc. you'll start a smear attack saying that they are funded by oil companies. This is nothing more than a tactic of innuendo which gets you off the hook from answering their VERY REAL scientific assertions.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 No need for an oil money smear of Christy, Spencer, or Lintzen. They haven't produced any evidence to support their theories. None that stands review anyway. They can make all the assertions they want but if they can't produce the goods their beliefs won't stick.

Even a dozen scientists could not create the support for the IPCC. There are simply too many independent lines of evidence from too many fields. Of course there's no evidence against the 12 anyway.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 But the feedback sign and magnitude were nothing more than a 'Wild Ass Guess' going back to the 1990's. That did not stop warmers from believing in it as if some wise oracle had spoken it, or better yet, there was data underpinning it, as there was not and is not. The daily observations about weather and climate show us the fallacy of the fabled positive feedback. The only places on earth that behave as the warmers predict is the desserts, notable for their lack of water vapor.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Weather? This is climate we're talking of. Do you know the difference? No one has made large scale, long term predictions of specific environments. Examples please. The IPCC has always been totally up front with the uncertainties of feedbacks, you should try to read a report or two.

Past climate change tell us a lot about climate feedback. We've used it to get increasingly accurate feedback numbers that also match the models quite well. 2.5 to 4.1oC with 3 most likely.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 And you should know that if you cite Lintzen and Spencer you are citing people who say low climate sensitivity. But if you then turn around and say big MWP you are saying large sensitivity. You can't really have it both ways you know. You should get your stories straight.

[scottishchap2008]

scam scam scam, just like the iraq war and the european union

[spernoadversa]

Let's stop sugarcoating this bullshit!! These emails are proof that the theory of " man made climate change" is an outright lie. Hide the decline is all I had to see.

[mebe84]

contrary to the video description, it was not just a handful of e-mails it was thousands of e-mails. nice try climatebrad, but you should think of lies that are not so obvious.

[acnicolet]

Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change—which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines—is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

[jimbo1490]

But the problem is that for many years, since about 1995, this clique of scientists has been quite successful in blocking the publication of hundreds, if not thousands of papers skeptical of the consensus from publication in the same prestigious journals you are now telling us we should trust. Your 'thousands of papers' are furthermore tainted by manipulated data from Hadley and many say Giss as well. So the basic data is being fudged and the skeptics are being silenced. The scam worked on You!

[websnarf]

It is not possible to block the publication of a paper completely -- it is only possible to do that at a specific journal. Furthermore, peer review has to be done in written form -- rejections must be clear. Thus if these supposed hundreds of papers even existed, they could simply take their work to another journal, or publicize their results themselves, either on a website, or a book, or whatever and show how the review was flawed.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 What a moronic claim. Have you got even one iota of proof for that grand conspiracy? All of the authors of those 1000s of papers just stayed quiet for the hell of it?

We have 5 data sets. All of them show the same thing, warming. Warming that has continued through constant claims by deniers that it is cooling.

Amazing how the glaciers, ice caps, birds, flowers, ocean temperatures, etc., etc. are all in on this "scam." Who knew the NWO could control nature. Wow.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 Warming is not a crisis. It has warmed before. So what? The only way warming *might* be worrisome is if it were *unprecedented*. Your warmer gurus know this also, which is why the first leg of their conspiracy was to 'create' a past that was cooler than we already knew it was from over 200 paleo-climate reconstructions. With a mere ~8 papers, Team Hockey Stick was able to overturn the strong consensus on past climate. Did they use better data? More data? Better analysis? Hardly!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Show me which one of those 200 reconstructions is a global reconstruction. There was no consensus on past climate to be overturned. Surely you don't mean Lamb's plot of central England in the IPCC FAR? The various hockey sticks, of which there are now 13, are all global reconstructions and they have been replicated and validated numerous times.

The warming is likely unprecedented in our civilized history. No doubt it will be significantly so if we continue.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 Oh please!You think NONE of them were? Or do you believe that the MBH papers were somehow 'more so'? Even when they used 1 or 2 trees to characterize an entire continent? Look at the IPCC's own reports before MBH-98. They show the consensus view of a GLOBAL Medieval Warm Period, substantially warmer than present. To this day, the ~8 papers of Team Hockey Stick are about the only support you can find for the assertions contained therein.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 I don't think none of them are, I know none of them are. The 2 trees for a continent line is BS. But while MBH was a great first advance there are newer and more complete studies that differ but not greatly. The IPCC preMBH98 was the Lamb graph of CENTRAL ENGLAND it was all there was and it did not represent a consensus. Read the report. The MWP as seen on that graph was a regional effect. And today's temps are well above the Lamb graph's MWP even with 50 year averages to match Lamb.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 See Syun Akasofu's work for a full debunking of the *myth* of the regional MWP.

On a different note, what do you propose we do about to 50Gt (thousand million metric tonnes) of anthropogenic CO2 that will be the annual industrial output by 2050? You goobers believe that our present emissions of 8Gt warmed us, though most of it was released after 1977, so the average annual output over the last 50 years was certainly <1Gt. And now 50Gt/yr is on the way. It's all a fool's errand!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 What a particularly stupid post. 1st we produce 26Gt of CO2 every year (IPCC AR4) not 8Gt in total. What do "we propose to do with it?" Are you on a different planet or something? Even though the rise is much less than you state, it is still very significant and will hurt you as much as it hurts me. So what do you plan to do about it?

I would begin by changing over to wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and even nuclear. Only a fool would do nothing.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 You're so misinformed is really sad :( CDIAC is the very best database on CO2 emissions, both cumulative and annual with tabulated totals back to yr 1750. The peak year was 2005 with 8.4Gt globally for the yr 2005. The US DOE study projects that China alone will emit 19-26Gt by 2050. 2 other economies will have surpassed the US in CO2 emissions by then (India, Indonesia) and US CO2 emissions will have grown to ~6Gt. There will be NO reduction in CO2 emissions!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 As you say CDIAC is the source. CDIAC reports to the UN. The IPCC says 29Gt of CO2. CDIAC reports in just carbon. If you take your 8.4 and multiply it by 3.667 (the factor needed to turn the atomic weight of Caron into the atomic weight of CO2 you get 30.8Gt of CO2. More than the IPCC number. The US DOE publishes estimates in CO2 not carbon. Therefore my 29 Gt is more accurate but perhaps a little low.

In matters like this it's attention to detail that finds the truth. You lose.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59

Quoted directly from the CDIAC site:

"Since 1751 approximately 337 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2007 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 8365 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 1.7% increase from 2006."

So the ANNUAL number is 8365 thousand million metric tons, which I rounded to 8.4 Gt

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo90 Those are good numbers. I agree with them. But look at the units. CARBON. Convert the C to CO2 and you get 30.6 Gts. Which is what I said. We agree on the current emissions.

Now look at the units used by the USDOE. They use CO2. You can't compare 8.4Gts of C to 19-26Gts of CO2. You have to use the same units. To get C output of China divide 19-26 by 3.667 and you get 5.2-7.1 Gts by 2050. It is a lot more, but nothing like what you claim.

It's in the details Jimbo.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 If you go to the page, you'll see that the authors use the terms interchangeably, though they are indeed different.

But all this minutiae misses the braoder point: THERE WILL BE NO REDUCTION IN CARBON (or CO2) EMISSIONS! Instead of cutting emissions, or holding steady, anthropogenic emissions will increase 6 or 7 fold in the next 40 years! Don't you think all these government agencies know this? After all, they authored these estimates! So then, what is the point of the effort?

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 From the CDIAC web page: "CDIAC expresses CO2 emissions in terms of the mass of carbon, the unit commonly used in carbon cycle budgets. This is done because the carbon atom changes atomic partners many times through the course of the carbon cycle"

Estimates are based on current trends. Trends can change. Yes China and India will need lots of new energy. If we are to survive as a civilization we need to change the source of the energy. Your point is pointless.

[jimbo1490]

And I don't mean the question rhetorically as if to suggest that the effort is pointless, but with the intent of demonstrating that point is something else since it cannot possibly be to actually cut emissions since we both know that just impossible.

By the way, I'm right on the actual numbers, you're just obfuscating. Here's more quotes from the CDIAC site

"Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2007 "

Notice it says "CO2 emissions"

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Yes it does say CO2 emissions but the figure you quoted was in units of carbon. That is what they do. An astute reader would notice that. You can't just arbitrarily then compare the number to CO2 emissions just because the title has the same words. It's basic math.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 I never made such a claim. I know perfectly well that 8.4Gt is an annual emission for 2005-2007, NOT a cumulative emission number. Furthermore, I also know that at a time when our emissions were 1/10 of present(1915), atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Ditto for when anthropogenic emissions were 1/100 of present (1850) CO2 was nevertheless rising. Do you not understand that we can NEVER return to that level of emissions?

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 I'll accept you miswrote your thoughts but my post is a direct, unaltered quote.

Yes natural forces were at work in the most of the warming period however CO2 was part of it. Since the late 1970s CO2 effects have very likely driven all the warming.

We don't need to get back to 1915 levels but we actually can if we wish. We can produce all our energy via non carbon forms. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 The evidence that we can NEVER replace fossil fuels (or hydrocarbon substitutes) is OVERWHELMING. We don't even have enough neodymium or lithium to build 1/10 of the batteries we'll need to make a dent in our fossil fuel consumption! Without efficient energy storage, renewables are a non-starter!

Don't forget that the worlds energy consumption levels are a moving target. We'll need half again more energy than present by 2050; China will need ten fold at least.

[jimbo1490]

Furthermore, even we in the wealthy west cannot afford these technologies now, nor will we be able to afford them in the future. As Ne and Li become scarce, imagine how expensive it will be to build generators and batteries! And what about the developing world? If we can't afford expensive 'boutique' energy sources on a grand enough scale to matter, what makes you think the developing world can? And they are precisely the source of all the coming emissions increase!

50Gt by 2050. Live with it.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 @jimbo1490 Both of us will likely be able to live with it. Our grand children likely will have a tougher time. Once again you only address the issues of peak supplies of one type of resource but you have yet to consider the limited supplies of hydro carbons.

There is no reason we can't afford these technologies now. In fact as many studies show they will save us money in the long run.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 If you WANT to switch to those technologies, then GO AHEAD! But there will be NO reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions given that the REAL increases will come from China, India and Indonesia, who will CERTAINLY not implement expensive energy technologies when they have coal and oil in their own backyards. Carbon cutting schemes are just a fool's errand like sending the new kid out for a bucket of compression.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 The privately held Chorus Motors has invented and developed an improved AC induction motor that completely eliminates the permanent neodymium magnets to supply the energy needed to accelerate hybrid or electric vehicles. If this technology is widely adopted, it would free up neodymium supplies for other uses and also tend to lower the metal’s price

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 We can produce all the earth's current electrical output using existing solar panels covering a 156 sq km area of Saudi Arabia. That doesn't even begin to tap the masses of energy available via wind and tides. We can use nuclear as a base load and alternatives for the rest. Smart grids will allow loads of flexibility in generation.

There are a variety of ways to store energy without using batteries. Molten Salt is very promising. Short term hydro is working. Under ground air.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 As long as the sun shines it's all good, right? But what about night? For the night (and cloudy days, etc) you need STORAGE! We will run out of Lithium and Nickel and several other 'rare earth' metals LONG before we run out of fossil fuels!

The 'alternative' (biomass) hydrocarbons hold much more promise. Of course they still make CO2 when you burn them.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 The wind is always blowing somewhere, they're working on flying windmills that stay 1000ft up where the wind is constant. The sun is always shining somewhere. Next generation geothermal is available almost everywhere. We just need a large smart grid. Scientists are aware of the limits of Li and Ni resources so they are working around them.

Biomass hydrocarbons absorb CO2 when they form so they are carbon neutral. However they are much, much less efficient than just straight solar.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 "LONG before we run out of fossil fuels!"

But we will run out of fossil fuels and within the century. If we want to keep civilization then we need to come up with alternatives. Why wouldn't we start now when we get the benefit of stopping climate change?

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Swiss company ReVolt is developing rechargeable zinc-air batteries. They hold 300 percent more charge than li ion batteries and cost 1/2as much. Fluidic Energy claims that it can develop a metal air battery that will hold 11x the charge of the best li ion batteries for less than 1/3 the cost. A car running on such batteries would have a range of 400 to 500 miles on a single charge. These batteries are made from far more available materials which can be fairly easily recycled.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 You still don't get your USDOE estimates right. If they are correct China needs 3-4 times current energy needs.

We will have to change from fossils anyway. If we keep pumping them out at the increased rate you suggest is inevitable, and I'm not disagreeing, we will run out of all of them in a few decades. Then we have to go alternative and it will be higher.

Of course by then AGW will have made the whole point moot.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 China now emits ~2.5Gt and they are projected to be emitting ~26Gt by 2050.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 China emitted 6.5 Gts of CO2 in 2007. Your own quoted numbers estimates range from 19 to 26Gt so that's 3 to 4 times.

United Nations Statistics Division, Millennium Development Goals indicators: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tonnes of CO2 (collected by CDIAC)

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 Those figures are dead wrong. It's a big scandal of China's 'self reporting' in conjunction with the UN's desire to downplay China's real emissions, since people like me then say "Look at what China emits; why should we cut?" China cannot estimate it's current emissions and reported it's figures from the year 1994, which the UN chose to believe at outlined. China was SUPPOSED to surpass the US in emissions `2010-2012' but instead it happened 5 years ago,

[jimbo1490]

Furthermore, the UN used VERY optimistic (downplayed) growth estimates for China's emission since the late 90's, projecting only a laughable 2.5% / yr growth. The actual growth over the period was ~11%/yr ! It's all just another big but unheralded scandal.

"China, India, Indonesia, Brazil Can’t Estimate Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Latest Figures are From 1994 " [Google]

We lied too, saying our emissions grew 200 MMT when in fact they grew 700MMT!

And then there's the great coal fire!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 The faster the energy use increases the faster we run out. Either way, now or later, alternatives are the only option. Trouble is later is too late.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 So now CDIAC's numbers are wrong? That's where the numbers came from. A little consistency please.

China still emits far less per capita than western nations. Kyoto was a we started and so we'll make the first move program. Now getting China to cut is part of the agenda.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide contains one ton of carbon.Therefore, the DOE's projection of 26Gt for China's yr 2050 CARBON emissions could be expressed as 26Gt x 3.67 or ~95Gt of CARBON DIOXIDE emissions.

There will be NO reduction in CO2 emissions. It is a classic fool's errand!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 You really don't read very well do you. I've finally taught you how to convert C into CO2 or CO2 into C, but you still can't read units. The DOE reports in CO2. Therefore you need to divide 26 by 3.67 not multiply.

Happily driving off a cliff when you know the cliff is coming and there is a perfectly viable way around...that's a fools errand.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 No the DOE as well a CDIAC use the same reporting for consistency, which is units carbon. Yes,by 2050 China BY ITSELF will be making several times more CO2 or carbon or however you'd like to account it than the entire industrrial world does right now.

All of the carbon cuting foolishness your goober heroes are proposing will only trim about 1/10 of a degree C by 2100. Your so-called cliff is looking more like a small pebble in the road! The REAL cliif will be the economic impact

[jimbo1490]

US DOE, CDIAC and the UN have all (purposely?) woefully underestimated China's emissions and future emissions, going back more than 10 years. That explains why it was such a shock when China overtook the US as #1 Co2 emitter in 2005 instead of 2012-2014 as DOE and UN had predicted. I say they continue this trend of underestimation as it is politically expedient.

Their coal mine firea are not part of their emissions accounting, for instance, and burn ~200 million metric tons of coal per year

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Yes coal fires are a problem although at 10 to 200 MILLION tons per year they are a small percent of China's 3.2 BILLION Metric Tonnes of consumption. I like how you use the upper estimate only when the range is very large.

Politically expedient??? Oh right......I forgot. It's all part of a world wide communist plot. Yawn.

It wasn't a shock that China overtook the USA it was expected. It did happen a few years faster than expected. Big deal.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 You'll need to show a source for that claim. I've given you the CDIAC quote on why they use carbon. I've been all over the DOE and UN and not a single reference to C just CO2.

Trimming the temperature by 1/10th degree by 2100? That would be brilliant. If we can accomplish that we will have won the fight and averted disaster.

There are numerous studies that show there will be either a positive or negligible economic outcome. The consequences of doing nothing will destroy the economy

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 There may not be. Human stupidity and self destructive behaviour is a common theme in our history. That makes no matter as to what is the right course of action.

In addition as AGW is already having important effects on China and India they may be willing to listen. China is already a leader in alternative energy sources. But yes there is still much work to be done.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 Well you're being stupid and self-destructive right now! You're living the high energy consumption lifetstyle that the warmer goons say is ruining the earth! Did you drive a car today? I know you used a computer, so I won't even ASK about that. How about a cell phone? Do you own one? Do you even have a clue how much energy these devices use in total? Your "willing to listen" blurb is priceless. You see, the DOE estimate includes the 'China on board' scenario: It yields 19Gt vs 26Gt!

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 You really don't know much about me do you. I did drive today (a compact car) but I've walked to work for the past 20 years. I don't own a cell. I have a heat pump and on demand water heater. I eat local food. And yes I know how much energy this all uses. I get my electricity from hydro. Given more options I'd pick them. To make that happen I want my government to implement a carbon tax. I want a cap and trade system. I want a massive spending on on R&D into and building alternatives

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 All that is just 'trimming'; that won't cut it. That won't get us to a REDUCTION in carbon emissions. If we (the west) do ALL those things, then our CO2 emissions will only increase (yes increase) about 40% in the next 40 years instead of 100% as they would in a 'business as usual' scenario. For China, a 'Bus as usual' scenario yields ~26Gt by 2050, and 19Gt in 'extreme austerity' mode, the way you choose to live. Either way there will be NOTHING LIKE a reduction in anthropogenic CO2

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Of course its just trimming. Individuals cannot impact CO2 emissions any where near what is needed. It has to be a systemic and global effort. We already have the capacity to do much of what is needed without really limiting our standard of living. There is no reason we can't reduce CO2 emissions to near zero.

If your only argument is we won't then what can I say. It is a matter of choice. But if you think gas prices are high now wait until even more Chinese and Indians want it.

[jimbo1490]

@acnicolet Unless it happens that these works of these particular men are FOUNDATIONAL to the whole premise, to wit, that the 20th century's climate was somehow anomalous. About the only papers you will find that make this assertion are the works of "Team Hockey Stick". So if they are wrong, and indeed there was nothing anomalous about 20th century climate, than all the other works riding on the assumption that 20th century climate WAS anomalous, are all WORTHLESS.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 That the current warming is anomalous is now supported by 13 different Northern Hemisphere reconstructions. They use a variety of proxies and all come to essentially the same conclusion. You guys spend so much time failing to prove that Mann is wrong that you have missed the fact science has moved on.

And the current warming being anomalous is not that important in the grand scheme of things. We know the current warming presents dangers no matter what happened in the past.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 "And the current warming being anomalous is not that important in the grand scheme of things. We know the current warming presents dangers no matter what happened in the past. "

This statement is ridiculous on 2 fronts. 1) If the earth was this warm in the past, then our current biosphere is capable of coping just as it once did. 2)If it was this warm without our emissions, ie entirely due to natural causes, then who can say that current warming is also entirely natural?

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 "If the earth was this warm in the past, then our current biosphere is capable of coping just as it once did."

Just because the earth's temperature was warmer in the past, and we know it was, does not mean our current biosphere can cope with it. The rate of change on a stretched and stressed environment is obviously a problem. We know enough about the time it takes and how animals and plants to adapt to changes to know that things are currently happening too fast.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 "If it was this warm without our emissions, ie entirely due to natural causes, then who can say that current warming is also entirely natural?"

That's just dumb. You might as well say it might be due to fairies. We know the natural causes of past climate changes. We looked for them and they weren't there. They have been eliminated. It can only be "entirely natural" if there are natural reasons to explain the change. There aren't any. However the facts fit AGW via CO2 very well.

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59 Why is that dumb? Do you really believe we know all there is to know about the atmosphere and climate? Do you not understand that we don't even yet know what triggered past warming and cooling events? The FACT that warming events occurred in the past, entirely devoid of anthropogenic CO2 emissions means that natural warming is a possibility. It seems you need to be schooled in basic logical argument development, my friend.

[rugbyguy59]

@jimb It's dumb because we do know what triggered most past warming and cooling events. Natural warming is of course possible, but there has to be a cause. Things don't just warm up on their own. Energy is not created out of nothing. The main climate forcings are Milankovitch cycles, the sun, albedo, GHGs, and aerosols.If you want to say its natural you need to come up with a natural cause. It needs to be one that acts exactly like a GHG though because that is what the evidence says is happening

[jimbo1490]

@rugbyguy59" It's dumb because we do know what triggered most past warming and cooling events."

This statement is complete and utter bullshit, false and ridiculous. There are several competing THEORIES about past climate trends, but this cannot be confused with the sort of certainty that we normally infer from the term 'We Know". We don't 'Know', we GUESS. All the factors you mentioned, plus the solar wind/cosmic ray phenomena play a part, but what part or fraction each plays is just a *GUESS*

[rugbyguy59]

@jimbo1490 Cosmic ray theory may be, as Alley puts it, a fine tuning knob on climate. Even that isn't established. They are not a big forcing. If you want to know what the working understanding of change scientists have today you should watch Richard Alley's 45 minute speech called "CO2: The Biggest Control Knob." It is available online.

We don't guess. We develop hypothesis based on what we know and take empirical measurements to test those theories. Over time we figure it out.

[acnicolet]

Isnt it "interesting" that is is conservatives, those who have historically been so opposed to any kind of change in America that are also refusing to accept change in order to fight climate change? Is this a coincidence? Or should conservatives start forgetting about politics, and look at the facts. The fact that in climate change, their country is facing the biggest threat since nuclear war in the 60's

[jimbo1490]

But if climate change is actually entirely natural (and the REAL evidence is that this is the case) then what conservatives are REALLY fighting is idiocy, which is then true nature of all the carbon cutting/taxing schemes given the above. You ARE against idiocy, aren't you?

[acnicolet]

Hm the science is pretty clear on the facts that this is man made... I dont know why people are fighting this. We fixed the ozone layer didn't we? And greentech is a great way to restart american economy with a plethora of low-wage and high-wage jobs... When people are questioning climate change, its really just grasping at thin air. The scientific opposition to this, is minimal 5% of climatologists are sceptical at most.

ww[DOT].skepticalscience[DOT]c­om/global-warming-scientific-c­onsensus.htm

[acnicolet]

There is scientific consensus that man-made climate change is real and no one author or newshost is going to change that. You should search for "Sceptical Science" on Google and go to the first site. It will explain it all, and will give you scientific sources for every statement that you can use. Also, sceptics can post their oppinions in open debate. Its a lot more reasonable to create your views there, than from a newshost on FOX or anywhere for that matter

[jimbo1490]

@acnicolet "Skeptical Science" is another global warming political action website masquerading as a scirntific site. And you think Fox News is biased :D

[websnarf]

Natural climate changes happen over the periods of hundreds to thousands of years. The climate change being observed is far more immediate than anything that could be occurring naturally.

[enigmoxical]

All I need to know that global warming is a fraud is that lying politicians and world leaders are promoting it. It has nothing to do with saving the earth and everything to do with advancing their socialist agenda upon the world.

[acnicolet]

No one is advancing any aggenda... they're simply trying to save the world from ignorant cynicists such as extremist saudi arabian oil-sheiks, and ignorant over-spending, polluting, colluding, conservative, non-evolutionary, selfish nay-sayers like yourself - thankyou - have a nice day

[TheReallitycheck]

everybody has an agenda fooool

just like you do... you tree hugger

[enigmoxical]

So, would Obama be included among those who are trying to keep others from over-spending? Never mind the hundreds of billions of dollars he has already shelled out in corporate bail-outs. You really don't have a clue, do you?

[acnicolet]

Well technically - I have a masters degree in economics, so I guess I should have some kind of a clue. The fact is that the bailouts are not free cash - they are loans. Loans with interest which are now generating positive interest cash flow and are being paid back to the administration.

Im pretty sure Obama didn't want to spend that money - but historically, the most successful way to break a macroeconomic downward spiral has been to increase government spending - so thats what he did.

[TheReallitycheck]

If the intrest is such a positve fact then why is the dollar loosing its value after this wonderfull stimulus?

And since when in history have we ever been faced with such a massive financial breakdown? Oh wait isn't Japan still trying to spend its way out of its problems for the last 10 yrs. (macroeconomic downward spiral) . Is it working?? For you to say that history proves that this is the best way to solve our current problems is a load of BS.

[acnicolet]

1) No its not BS, its facts. Something that you seem to take very lightly. 2). Reps. loose legislation and war is the cause of the mess you are in. 3. Japan grew 4.8 percent this year. 4) I dont know about the flipping og the chart, but if you're referring to the mess up he made of the y-axis in his presentation then he has later corrected it.. it was a graphics mistake... hardly solid evidence that Al Gore was secretly signalling us that he was lying(!?)

[TheReallitycheck]

Just checked and I love they way you fudge facts...

Growth is -4.5 % this year from -7% in 2008. To say Japan has a positive growth of 4.5% would mean that they had a come back from -7% last year. That totals to 11% growth to call it "positive" like you do. - + - = -

So go and sell your twisted crap somewhere else

And what does this year have to do with it. You said that the way were going at it now will help... Has it helped Japan in the last 10 years? Your full of shit.

[acnicolet]

I was talking about the annualized growth rate last quarter: CNN: "Japan's economy grew at an annualized rate of 4.8 percent last quarter, the fastest pace in two years" ... WSJ: "[T]he data released Monday showed Japan benefited from inventory adjustments and a rise in exports and government spending"

[acnicolet]

Im better educated than you - and my country is not owned by China... That is where I will leave it.

[TheReallitycheck]

@acnicolet

If you say so...And niether is my country China. You assume to much. And thats where I will leave it.

[jimbo1490]

@acnicolet Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that withGLOBAL CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, what kind of MORON could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount? How about that agenda

[websnarf]

Did you miss the fact that there are also politicians and world leader who are denying global warming?

I see "socialism" is the new "nigger". It doesn't make you sound any more sophisticated just because you changed words.

[acnicolet]

The word "Social" orignates from the latin word "Socius" which means "companion", "associate" or "ally" and in the form "Socialis" refers to "a bond between people". So in my interpretation, being social means wanting to bond with people and be a friend and an ally. Latin societas, a "friendly association with others," is from socius meaning "companion, associate or business partner." - So what is so bad about being a socialist when it basically means that you cherish teamwork and work together?

[websnarf]

I don't have a prolem with it. Its the tea-baggers that have a problem with it. Its no longer socially acceptable to use certain words like "nigger" -- but that's not because they learned to be better people, its because of social pressure. So now they have a new word to replace it called "socialism". They essentially mean almost the same thing, so it works for them. When you see someone saying "socialism" in a negative connotation you realize that they *want* to say nigger, instead.

[321moe]

@websnarf

Wow, stupidity has reached a new high. So let me get this right, Hitler was a "nigger"? Hugo Chavez is a "nigger"? Al Gore is a closet "nigger"?

Damn, this youtube thing is great, you learn new things everyday.

Since you like to use the word "nigger" how bout this, we consumers are the"nigger" of the great society elites, Gore and ilk.

[blanchfield137]

@websnarf - "[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists [mistakenly] conclude that we object to its being done at all."

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

[St37One]

Corruption and fraud.

thats what is so bad.

[EmperorNero61]

@acnicolet: The term "socialism" is a misnomer for statism. They just picked a word that made their ideology sound good. It has nothing to do with being social.

The word "social" means working together, but that's not what socialism is.

Actually, socialism is anti-social; it makes people work LESS together because they expect government to solve problems, that absolves them from helping. Citizens of socialist nations donate far less to private charity than citizens of free market societies.

[jimbo1490]

@websnarf "Nigger' is a racial slur. "socialism' is the name (self appointed) by adherents to a particular political system. It has become a slur since it is a COMPLETELY FAILED political system which has NEVER worked anywhere it has been implemented. Now that the word has become synonymous with its failures, it has become a slur, and deservedly so.

[eviloprah]

I don't know about you but I am willing to risk every man, woman and child on earth. Damned if I will admit these environmentalists are right.

[acnicolet]

Thats probably how you feel about Iraq too?

[eviloprah]

Sarcasm much? It was a joke.....

I can't believe I have to explain Sarcasm to people.

Hopefully this person is 12 and they can blame it on their youth.

[acnicolet]

Haha well ok - im sorry. Its just that sarcasm is usually taking an extreme stance on something to make people realize how ridiculous there general assumption is. And often when you engage in discussions with climate-change-deniers or people who praise FOX, their statements are ridiculous, but they actually mean it...

Anyway - I feel like everyone should just accept the fact that scientists overwhelmingly agree about this and a few emails is not going to change it.

[TheReallitycheck]

acnicolet

"just accept the fact"? Are you saying we should all lie down and be lead like like little children because we have a different opinion? What facts!

The fact that you were lied to, the fact that data was changed to make the public believe that it was their fault for causing the global warming. C'mon man, prove to me that global warming is caused by Co2.

30,000 scientist have a different view! But I guess that means nothing to you.

By the way Co2 is the nutriant for plants

[acnicolet]

Your reply demonstrates to me that you do not know much about this. Im sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts. The proof is there. And the CO2 is nutrient for plants underlines your lack of knowledge. CO2 on earth is in a cycle. We and other living creatures emit it and plants and organisms breathe it. The real issue is that we are emitting more than is beeing absorbed, and now the cycle is breaking.

Search for "Sceptical Science" on Google. The first website will address all your doubts.

[TheReallitycheck]

Your reply by refering me to another website, and implying tha I am wrong on all acounts doesn't cut it. It shows me how well you have been educated by the climate fantatics. Now form your own opinion.

Question. Since the last 100 years we have just about cut down 80% of the world vegitation so wouldn't it be logical that the air has a higher concentration of Co2. Their is your absortion problem.

Q: If Co2 concentration is warming the planet then why do reports state that it is COOLING?

[acnicolet]

I'm sorry to say this - but you are an idiot. Cutting down vegetation, burning it and burning the remians of just about ALL vegetation remains that have accumulated in the earth millions of years (oil) is EXACTLY the problem... and the earth is not cooling. Get real. Get educated. And if not... Get F**ked...

[TheReallitycheck]

Your such a loser. Telling people to believe this and believe that refering them to one web page that will "take away all doubts"Its not that easy.

You do realize that the earth exists in cycles and that this heating and cooling is a process of that cycle.

It sucks doesn't it when the rise of co2 levels don't influence the earths temprature as reports say.

Even the emails from CRU claim the the same delima. Except the fact that you have been lied to, by your dear save the planet community.

[acnicolet]

Fortunately ignorants like you come in small dozes. The rest of the world is getting it, and we shall look upon america, the once great empire, while it crashes and burns in a whimper of debt and smog.

I have lots of good and reasonable friends in the US, so obviously I hope that you personally will be ignored through democracy - but if you dont change, that will be your sad destiny. Yes even China and Russia are getting it while you shrug your shoulders and cross your arms. Its sad so sad.

[TheReallitycheck]

Thank god people like me exist, always staying sceptic of what private oragnizations say, and who advise our governments.

IT WAS THANKS TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO FOLLOW ALL PROPAGANDA THAT GOT HITLER GOING IN THE 2ND WW.

Free your mind you little doush bag.

[acnicolet]

Oil goood - Climate baad

[TheReallitycheck]

Wow what a come back... did one of the web sites that you refered me to give you that answer.

But where is the data you have that will prove Co2 is causing global temprature rise? Gore flipt the hockey stick chart, didn't he?Accept that the consnesis  (95%) was fooled by the CRU, who changed data, (especially for you weak minden) To get aboard.

You never really answer a question, you just put down others with a different opinion.

[matsutakneatche]

I guess the downing street memos, are misleading too.

[websnarf]

The downing street memos make a clear case of lies that has always been obviously so (they were easily exposed as lies even before we established that there were no WMDs in Iraq).

These emails require interpretation, and its absolutely unclear what these the various quotes have to do with the real science.

[acnicolet]

95% of scientists that research and publish papers about climate issues agree that climate change is real - and man made

[matsutakneatche]

@acnicolet bullllllshit.

[matsutakneatche]

@acnicolet send me those stats, lol.

[acnicolet]

tigger[DOT]uic[DOT]edu/~pdoran­/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[DillonX]

There is no evidence that man-made climate change is substantial.

[stratvic]

"Handful of hacked emails"?

Try thousands - 60 odd megabytes.

They show the emphasis is on the politics of protecting a position and including or excluding people, papers, and evidence based on whether it supports the warming theory or not.

The question is ... does a politicized process better result in determining fact than an open scientific process.

If politics is a poor process for determining facts, then the emails show that the process is well and truly broken.

[jaimymoore]

Wow, this from a guy who flat out lied about what a scientist told him?

Yeah, like HE'S got any credibility.

[Probesoul]

They're gonna try to blame everything of a few rogue scientists when in fact it's the private funding from banks through their private foundations and public funding through governments all managed through the UN and IPCC that are pushing the scam and paying off select scientists to fudge the data.

The entire mechanism of the fraud has to be brought down otherwise it will just continue is some other form.

[libertyplayground]

3. "we can't account for the lack of the warming and it's a travesty we can't" - this email shows that the scientists WANT the earth to be devastated by global warming and that the climate models - the linchpin of the alarmists - do not work and thus any quantification to the effect of human effect has been totally wrong.

4. Comments in the code show that the CRU data is a complete joke - the code had to ignore parts of the data.

[jaimymoore]

He actually was talking about a recent paper that he wrote. And the problem isnt that they dont have explanations for it, its that they dont have the equipment to measure the Earths energy accounting with enough precision to make specific short-term predictions on which years will be colder than current prediction trends indicate, and which will be warmer. If you read the actual paper, youll see that the email in question isnt sufficient for understanding what it is he was talking about.

[libertyplayground]

1. they weren't hacked... they were leaked by an insider. we know this because they were emailed to a bbc reporter 5 weeks ago

2. the emails confirm that the hockey stick evidence was falsified, and that the entire culture and landscape in which scientists have worked has been tilted toward establishment gatekeepers who work to stifle dissent.

[jaimymoore]

"falsified"?

Why? Because you don't know what a "trick" is?

Figures.

[libertyplayground]

they play into an earlier dispute... see Mcintyre's research

[2xtream]

nice work