There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
As cohesive and consistent as...a 30-year cooling period in the middle of rising CO2. As cohesive and consistent as "We're not going to investigate other possible methods of warming, as they don't fit into our political agenda." As cohesive and consistent as "Anyone who disagrees with us is a holocaust denier, paid off by the corporate lobbyists. As cohesive and consistent as, "We need to ignore opposing data, and inflate data we like to scare the shit out of people, so they'll -have- to act."
This has been a repeated assertion that statisticians during blind studies reject, even over the last 10 years the trend has been up. How on earth is it cooling if the last few years on the instrumental record are record highs? Where on earth do you get your information from? Lastly, if you want a response hit the reply button
If you're referring to the period where aerosols were particulate matter blocking out sunlight masking the effect of ghgs for a few decades, well that doesn't prevent the basic mechanism of CO2 resulting in rising temperatures with similar solar irradiance and albedo. That argument would make about as much sense as "heaters don't work because you can open the window and make it cooler"
@topographicoceans11 Yeah, you sound like all other religious zealots. We'll look just as silly when Jesus returns. I'll stick to science. You can keep your Magic CO2, your Jesus, your gosts and goblins and everything else supernatural. If you want to worship Magic CO2 and pray for a cooler planet, go ahead. Just stay out of my wallet and don't expect me to follow your religion too.
man you're just fucking stupid, CO2 absorbs long wave radiation, basic observable fact that's been known for over 100 years, children even reproduce this for science projects, mythbusters did a show on it, this results in additional heat, this isn't fucking magic, it's basic physics that children can comprehend but you can't because you're so heavily in denial.
@garith21 CO2 is also plant food. This results in the production of oxygen. This has been known for centuries. Children learn this in school too!! It isn't fucking magic. It's basic biology that children can comprehend but you can't because you're so heavily in denial.
The fact that CO2 is a component in photosynthesis doesn't mean it ceases to have other properties like absorbing long wave radiation. Why you state such a point is moronic as saying electricity doesn't work because it can stop your heart.
Such a moronic line of argumentation. Hey, Oxygen isn't required for a combustion reaction because it's part of the respiratory cycle, look at me I'm using your line of argumentation to point out how stupid your reasoning is. Are you really convinced by such stupid lines of reasoning?
@garith21 And if you're offended by such a line of reasoning, don't use it yourself, then criticize me for it. Typical attitude of the eco-ligion nuts that drove me to question this 'climate change' bullshit after you -almost- had me believing.
I don't find the "line of reasoning" offensive, I find it moronic, materials don't lose any negative benefits just because they're part of another cycle which was your precise reasoning. I point out that the basic mechanism is so easily verifiable that children do it for science projects and you say it's used for photosynthesis, so what, that's as stupid as saying you can't drown because we need to drink water.
@garith21 I agree that it is stupid to say that you can't drown because we need to drink water. It's also stupid to even try to use that as an analogy to my argument. When I drink more water than my body can handle, it doesn't grow more of me to handle the increased supply. When you increase CO2, more plants grow to consume it. This has, previously, led to an overpopulation of plant life and over-consumption of atmospheric CO2, resulting in an ice age.
1) CO2 concentrations have been increasing, while more plants are growing there are many other carbon sinks reaching their limits and actually less able to absorb CO2 due to temperature increases, such as the ocean.
2) It was a perfect analogy for your argument as you implied that because it's used for photosynthesis that we either can't have to much of it or that it ceases having negative effects because it's required for life, it's merely pointing out the idiocy of your argument.
@garith21 Yes, it's far more idiotic than asserting that a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world. I bow to your ultimate wisdom. Allow me to cease talking with yet another religious zealot.
Thanks for the strawman, name one person that states that "a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world". Why is it that you have to resort to being so dishonest time and time again and resort to such moronic arguments in order to attempt to have a discussion? Also glad to see you admit that your idiotic reference is in fact more idiotic than a position no one holds, cheers to the religious denier, just like a creationist denying evolution.
James Hansen, George Monbiot, David Suzuki, for starters. Grist, Drudge. Again, thank you for proving your religious fanaticism to Gaia. Not once did I mention anything about creationism or evolution, nor did I mention anything about my religious preference. Which is -zero-, by the way. But your fanaticism ASSUMES that I must be some biblethumping christian. Sorry to disappoint your shallow mind, retard.
1) Actually in peer reviewed publications they don't, I don't really give much of a shit of their personal opinions as those aren't peer reviewed.
2) Obviously you're too stupid to realize that your fanaticism in regards to denial of scientific facts and information is identical to that of a creationist as is your tactics. It doesn't require you be a "biblethumping chrisitian" just a fanatic with no critical thinking skills or understanding.
@garith21 AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven. Your argument otherwise just proves your lack of critical thinking skills or understanding.
It's a scientific theory in the same way that the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and atomic theory are theories. It explains observed facts and laws in a cohesive and consistent which is why it's believed that AGW is the best explanation for the most recent warming, since most of it is basic physics, you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory.
"you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory."
AGW isn't a "Thnoery" yet
It's a Hypothises of Consensus of opinion based on the Corolation of Estimated average CO2 rise"observed" at the Keeling station vs observable Tempature rise in the "AGT" from about 40 weather stations in the Upper Temparate region
Next step of the Scientific Method is verifying and testing for the cause and effect of co2 on heat and actually linking co2 rise to humans
Responding to something that was posted 4 months ago? Seriously.
Anyways the actual mechanism for CO2 causing a net increase of energy has been known and tested for over a hundred years, it's pretty basic, you add energy to a system you get increased heat, it isn't that complicated.
"AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven"
It's what the consensus of opinion was for,to get funding from the governments to verify and test for agw and to determine 1) if it exists, 2) if so,how bad and 3) potential impact
The "A-Train" Began launching in 2008 first starting with the Canadian Co2 monotoring orbitor (CanX-2) then Japan's (Ibuki) witht the Next Generation Weather Sattilites Starting launch in July 2010
@garith21 I deny BS. Your religion is no better than any other. Yes, CO2 absorbs long wave radiation. So do many other things which are too tiny in volume to matter. Your religion preaches that Magic CO2 even as an insignificant trace gas over rides the vast effects of water vapor and controls the climate of the planet, even going back in time to do so since CO2 has always followed temperature. Go learn some physics before attempting to teach it, Dumbass.
Water vapor easily condenses out of the atmosphere unless there's another warming effect forcing the atmosphere to get warmer before hand. The reason why water vapor isn't seen as a forcing is because it's short lived unless something warms the air first, that's why it's seen as a factor in sensitivity and not a forcing.
@garith21 Yes, something has to warm the air for the water to evaporate. If you've ever looked in the sky during the day, you see this big yellow ball up there? Contrary to the claims of your priests, it has something to do with it. Curiously enough, it's also why CO2 is in a vapor state on most bodies in our solar system too. There's also the internal heat of some, like the earth.
1) While the sun is a significant factor in climate you can't say "the sun is changing the climate" when it's activity has been relatively stable over the last 50 years.
2) CO2 merely absorbs the available long wave radiation, on a snowball earth with little long wave radiation to absorb requires a vast amount of ghgs to swing it out of a snowball earth since the reflectivity of the earth would be very high
"going back in time to do so since CO2 has always followed temperature."
Go back to snowball earth, the only reason we're not still a frozen ice ball is because of GHGs getting in such high concentration that it overcame the albedo of a solid ice planet and swung the earth in the other direction. If the mechanism of CO2 being able to cause a warming didn't exist with the given solar irradiation we would still be a snowball earth today.
@garith21 Like I said, CO2 has always followed temperature. Even your Pope Gore's own goofy graph showed that. As for the "Snowball Earth" incidents, the last one was during the Neoproterozoic, the one before that was 2 billion years ago. CO2 was a significant component of Earth's atmosphere during those periods. But even then the evidence suggests it was methane, not CO2 which was important in the change, and triggered by vulcanism, as was the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED, it not lead.
@wrjamescom Yes, and you know what their response to 'CO2 following temperature'? "The oceans soak up most of the CO2 to a certain point until it is unable to contain the CO2 any longer due to heat/acidity, which takes 600-800 years, and massively releases the CO2 which causes a huge increase in temperature." By that logic, the recent increases in temperature shouldn't be happening for another 500-700 years.
But since the Politicians ask physists,whjo have a lot of time on their hands,instead of a vulcanologist...who is either near in a volcano the why,they got the "AGW" bullshit the Physists pull out of their ass via thumping on Svante
The Earth's core is like a pressure cooker and comes more hot when plate tectonics doesn't let it vent then releases heat as it does
"But even then the evidence suggests it was methane, not CO2 which was important in the change, and triggered by vulcanism, as was the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED"
no,no
Co2,the most infamous of the "GHG"S is in the thousands of trillions of tons in the Oceans, with thousands of trillion of tons more of it in the icy deep seas and trillions of trillions of it in the earth itself
As the core plumes in interglaciation it releases heat and co2 via increased tectonics from earth and deep sea
The thing never discussed about co2 is that 1) it is extremely tempature sensitive and,more importantl 2) It is heavier then air and only rides up into the air on the evaporation/percipitation cycle within the water vapor
When there is "Global Warmiong" the co2 coming out of the deep earth and from the ocean floor is carried by the ocean cuurent to the surface then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back down
"then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back d"
The Average estimated Co2 that the Keeling station uses is just that...an average
That 390ppm is made by taking the air sample at a certain time of day,at a certain altitude,at a certain wind speed,at a certain tempature,and at a certain humidity
second by second and minute by minute variations in CO2 ppm in air varies from 0ppm to 900ppm as wind,tempature,and humidity changes along with evaporation/percipitation
"Go learn some physics before attempting to teach it"
Physics and "common sense" are 2 different things, I'm merely telling you the mechanism is the ability for it to absorb long wave radiation and it's so easily verifiable that children can do it for science experiments, it's not magic. It's even so easy to verify in tiny water bottles with CO2 being added into the air contained within it as it's volume, and we add gigatons of it into the air.
@garith21 A child can also light a fart. And the atmosphere contains both methane and oxygen. By your religion's reasoning, that means the earth might blow up any second. Children can also boil water and see that the energy pumped into it doesn't raise it beyond the boiling point, that it produces vapor, and the vapor condenses. Any child can see what clouds to to sunlight. The interaction of the suns energy and water regulates earth's temperature. CO2 is irrelevant in Earth's system.
3) none of your idiocy or strawmen gets rid of the basic mechanism of CO2 as a driver in climate when all other relevant factors are the same, you can't blame long term deviations on short term cyclical variations, which is all that solar cycles and the el nino/la nina cycles are.
4) Clouds also retain long wave radiation that would otherwise go out into space, which is especially important at night
5) The reason why water vapor isn't seen as a driver in climate as much as a feed back in climate is because in order for it to stay in the atmosphere for a long period of time the temperatures have to rise first, otherwise it quickly condenses so it's completely irrelevant to long term deviations in temperature as a driver.
@Ranillon Are you afraid to talk science with me? Are you worried that since I've studied AGW and still don't believe it, that I would win the argument?
Guess what the most unscientific thing to say is? Call someone a 'climate denier'. Of course, that implies there are 'climate believers', making the whole blasted thing a religion instead of a science. How....primitive.
It has been proven time and time again throughout thousands of years of human history that 'scientific concensus' is a political argument that promotes oppression of ideas.
@Willaev Another complete strawman argument that at its core is anti-science since using this definition science is always wrong. No, in reality a scientific consensus means that a theory has the ABSOLUTE best backing and proof from science. The only way that changes is if a even better theory comes along to replace it. So, think AGW is all crap? Then PROVE IT!! Until then, you are just being anti-scientific and ignorant.
@Ranillon Fact: Climate scientists agree the planet has warmed. Fact: Climate scientists do -not- agree on the cause of the warming. Fact: Climate scientists do -not- agree on the significance of the warming. Fact: The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one. Fact: AGW-alarmist computer models have failed to predict every weather event, every dip in temperature of the last 10 years. Fact: Alarmist predictions in the 1970's said we'd be going into an ice age by 2000.
1) Most scientists do agree that a majority of the warming is due to human activities.
2) Most studies indicate that a doubling of CO2 will result in a 2-4.5 degree global change in temperatures with a few outliers as low as .34 degrees to 10 degrees, but a majority of the studies indicate around 2-4.5 degrees
3) Read peer reviewed literature and not the IPCC then.
4) Weather is chaotic, climate is relatively stable, it's why you don't stop calling deserts deserts because it flooded one day, all the same record cold temperatures are consistent with climate models and local anomalies are due to short cycled events, the global temperature on average has been rising.
5) Actually during the 70's we didn't know enough about the climate to declare much of anything, the peer reviewed literature states that a majority predicted warming, some predicted no change and very few predicted cooling. Even a statement by the National Academy of Science stated in their report in 1975 that "we do not yet know enough about our climate to ask the right questions"
@Willaev AMEN! I do not refer to these scammers as "scientists", it's an insult to anyone who practices the scientific method. The Magic CO2 religion's priests are no different from faith healers and other charlatans. They operate scams and rely on ignorant believers to pay them. But in this case, these scammers leech tax dollars. It amazes me that Michael Mann, Peter Popoff, Phil Jones, Jim Bakker, and James Hansen are still practicing their scams after being so clearly exposed.
@wrjamescom And just like chemtrail and UFO nuts who point at airliners and say "Government chemtrail plane/Alien spacecraft!!!", these AGW believers for some reason think the 'Burden of Proof' rests with the skeptics. 'Think AGW is crap? Prove it!!!' Okay, how about this. You think your AGW THEORY is scientific fact? PROVE IT!!! IT'S JUST A THEORY, YOU MORONS. That means it hasn't been proven to the standards of scientific evidence.
1) There's the basic observation CO2 absorbs IR radiation which is retained as heat, this has been known for well over a hundred years.
2) Observations of when and where it is warming quickest is consistent with AGW
3) The observations are not consistent with any other forms of warming
4) There are tons of scientific peer reviewed papers on the matter, but I suspect you haven't actually read a one your ignorance on a scientific theory is also indicative of your ignorance of science.
@Willaev AGW isn't evan valid as a scientifc theory. No more so that the "theory" of creation by gods. Even if CO2 released by man has magic properties that control the earth's temperature in spite of the water and the sun, and even goes back in time to do it making Al Gore's BS line up right, it's still identical to creationism and faith healing and psychic noinsense in that there can be no way to test the supernatural.
it's not magic, it's absorption of IR radiation that would have otherwise gone back into space, most of this is basic physics you know. A layman's way of considering it would be as insulation. Again the basic concept of CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been known for over a hundred years, it was even proposed if CO2 concentrations were higher that it would get warmer assuming the same conditions otherwise.
@garith21 Yeah, and pouring liquid into a body of water increases it's volume. But the same reasoning your magic CO2 religion used, a farmer adding a couple of cows to his land in Minnesota, because cows urinate and runoff enters the Mississippi river, should be worried about flooding New Orleans. CO2 is too tiny a trace gas in both volume and greenhouse characteristics to have even the slightest impact on earth's climate which is entirely controlled by the sun and water and geology.
@garith21 And for the pseudoscience of AGW to be true, the CO2 would have to have time travel capabilities, making effect precede cause. For millions of years rises and falls in temperature has preceded changes in CO2. So to claim the CO2 is the cause, is indeed a claim of magic.
4) If you actually read the study and the basic physics it points out that tilting of the earth's orbit would only result in a very small amount of warming and wouldn't affect the entire globe, the release of gases such as CO2 was predicted to have an amplifying warming effect over time. Also Hansen et al was the one that called for more study on the topic which resulted in that study.
@garith21 I have read it, and it's so full of holes that a gradeschooler could see through it is the school systems hadn't dumbed them down and stopped teaching science. Of course the fraud Hansen called for more study! How do you think he gets our money? The first IPCC report actually didn't fudge any data, and the data they published showed no sign of AGW. Yet the report's conclusion was that it was real anyway and they needed more US tax dollars to find evidence.
1) So "anyone that doesn't think the way I do is not doing science"
2) If they're so full of holes why is it you can't seem to point any out?
3) I just did you just said "it's part of a scientific conspiracy" sounds like you're the one being fundamentalist as you're defending your end the same way creationists do. "it's a scientific conspiracy, blah blah blah, your belief is a religion"
@garith21 Just for giggles, see if you can find ANY example of me EVER even using the term "scientific conspiracy". I never have, but you have. And now you are arguing against your own words. I do not consider faith healers or psychics or homeopathy, or chiropractic, or creationists or your Magic CO2 crackpot religion to be anything related to science, conspiratorial or not.
When you assert that scientists as a whole are conspiring to make a pseudoscience to scare you into going green that is asserting a scientific conspiracy, since it's endorsed but every national science organization and by most scientific organizations in the world, you are asserting a global scientific conspiracy.
@garith21 No, YOU are the one talking conspiracy. Presumably you also think all Baptists are conspiring to take your money because they all invite you to their church and they all pass the plate. The Magic CO2 religion is no different from any other in that regard. It's not a conspiracy, just a collection of believers in something on blind faith without evidence, and they want others to become followers too. And like many, they try to squelch opposing voices.
@garith21 And while there are absolutely some small groups who have been caught conspiring to peddle your religion (The "climategate" scandal clearly demonstrated that), the religion is not one big conspiracy, but like psychics and homeopathy, dousing, remote viewing, and other pseudoscience, there are people who latch onto it for money and others who get involved in peddling it because it helps their causes, and lots of others who are just too ignorant to see how stupid it is.
"climategate" was a non issue, as the physics of global warming is the primary reason why global warming is accepted, however there were many independent investigations that were done that came to the conclusion of no proof of fraud.
@garith21 That's total BS! There was no investigation. They just left the crooks make up statements and accepted it while ignoring the absolute proof of crimes and ethical violations staring them in the face. I read those emails and other documents and there's no way to define their actions as anthing other than outright fraud. They manipulated and falsified data to fit their agenda, they conspired to keep astual scientists from publishing their work, they defrauded taxpayers.
"I read those emails and other documents and there's no way to define their actions as anthing other than outright fraud."
*rolls eyes* obviously reading something and not caring about the context out of thousands of e-mails and cherry picking a few statements means it's an absolute conspiracy, but who cares about context right?
Second of all did you actually read what happened?
In the case of the soon-balleonas paper they were discussing that there were so many errors in the paper because of their lack of understanding that it should have never reached publication, It however was addressed by the "evil IPCC" which didn't squelch it but addressed it head on. It's not like they're squelching works of christy or other actual practicing climatologists.
@garith21 Oh please! Be serious. You didn't even read the documents and haven't paid any attention to what's been happening in the last 20 years if you believe that. They'd shut Christy up in a heart beat if they could, but his status and geography makes it impossible to do so without getting mud on their faces. So they just lie about whet he (and others) say when they can get away with it.
Actually there's no reason for them to, for the most part he's an actual practicing climatologist just like lindzen, why is it that there were no "conspiratory" e-mails talking about trying to silence actual people that know what they're talking about and criticisms are easily verifiable as public knowledge rather than some back door secrecy.
@garith21 They have Christy almost as much as McIntyre. But anyone who claims there were no conspiratory emails has not read the emails or is lying. Read them and try that claim again. For one of many examples, Mann and Jones in particular exchanged a number of them discussing using the scam "realclimate" site as a tool for fraud, disguising it as a "neutral site" while letting the scammers review posts and holding back posts to prevent scientists from contradicting their scam. Read them!
6) obviously you didn't read the e-mails Christy is in rather frequent communication with CRU
7) I've read the e-mails in context rather than out of context and I've also examined what has happened in real life to see what action was really taken. You're merely looking for any way to bend something to say "look it's a conspiracy" without any critical analysis what so ever.
@garith21 Most of the public is scientifically ignorant in the extreme. That's why people buy into such nonsense, buying copper bracelets and "detox" foot pads, and Magic CO2. Read your spam. Those crooks aren't one big group conspiring to sucker you into trying to increase your penis size. They are a thousand different crooks hoping you are stupid so they can take advantage of you. If there was no money or use to socialists in Magic CO2, they wouldn't be promoting that one either.
@garith21 And I never said anyone that doesn't think like me isn't doing science. But your priests absolutely make that statement every day. In reality, anyone not practicing the scientific method is NOT doing science. That includes your priests. Mann, Hansen, and their ilk are not scientists, they are frauds.
@garith21 As for the holes, they are obvious to anyone with a background in science. Hell, anyone familiar with refrigeration can see through most of it! But listing them and explaining them here with a limit of a few hundred characters isn't practical. But it's up to those making extraordinary claims (like doomsday BS) to show their data. I have yet to see any, and no one else has either. I've been telling people for years to be a hero and be the first. No takers so far.
I find it amazing for as much as you profess to have any that you still have to list even one, much less a few or all.
Second of all most aren't making some "we're all going to die in a few decades" predictions as you seem to be asserting, where do you even read this stuff? I'm still waiting for even one peer reviewed paper you claimed to have read or any problems in the material already presented.
"98% of climate scientists believe we're warming the planet!" Once again, you have the sheep quoting from the same poll that's been quoted by every other sheeple in the world. The same poll that's been dismissed by scientists because the questions it asks are muddy. Climate scientists agree the planet is warming. They DO NOT agree that it is caused by man. They're about 50/50 on that. That is not concensus.
"98% of climate scientists believe we're warming the planet!" Once again, you have the sheep quoting from the same poll that's been quoted by every other sheeple in the world. The same poll that's been dismissed by scientists because the questions it asks are muddy. Climate scientists agree the planet is warming. They DO NOT agree that it is caused by man. They're about 50/50 on that. If 50 doctors tell me my kid needs an operation, and 50 say no..I'm gonna get more opinions.
Globe not warming = Everything is fine, we can just keep consuming and producing mass quantities of waste, because obviously if the globe isn't warming now, IT NEVER WILL, even as the human population continues to increase.
I really don't know if I should thumbs up this for entertainment or thumbs down for complete lack of scientific understanding. I wonder if the creator really thinks that climate change is a hoax funded by some invisible hand for the sake of turning profit or it all this is satire?
@Bonez0r the real science looks at all the factors and adjusts for such variables. don't listen to the uneducated dbags that don't have the data, look at the peer reviewed scientific studies that are undeniable. they are out there if people were only willing to look.
@Bonez0r "Interplanetary climate change" is a complete myth, if for no other reason our knowledge of the climate on other planets is as yet so primitive that we can't make anything more than educated guesses. Oh, and there is also the little fact that the Sun has not been putting out any meaningful increase in energy -- a fact that we can measure >directly< thanks to satellites.
For a theory to be scientific, it must be able to be proven false. Because, it just might be. AGW is not science because it's devotees claim that wetter, dryer, hotter, colder -- that everything proves AGW. Find any truely scientific theory and you will see that it can be proven false. Not so with AGW.
Also, for a theory to be scientific, you must test and retest and get reproducible results. Computer models are not data because the data vary widely and mean nothing.
@B17Boy Again, this is completely bogus. Human caused Climate Change >is< falsifiable, namely by someone coming up with a better explanation. Your claim is just that -- a declaration made without any good basis that relies on fundamentally misunderstanding what science is.
@Ranillon - Not the way the climate change nazis tell it. Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said that global warming can mean colder, hotter, wetter, drier. If everything proves global warming, then it's not science. If global warming could only be proved by warmer temps, then there would be an element of science to it because colder temps would disprove it.
Now, with "climate change" how would know? Change means just that; hotter, colder, wetter, drier. There's no science there.
@B17Boy I am amazed you would even try such an argument -- what, climate change is "disproven" because you can play around with word definitions? What matters is the SCIENCE and it is quite clear -- man-made climate change is very real and poses a threat to the future. You are relying on easy ad hominem insults and playing with definitions to dismiss entire schools of science that provide mountains of evidence for AGW. Stop believing in easy insults and look at the real evidence!
@Ranillon - For something to be science, it must be falsifiable, and you must have reproducible results in testing. That is, every test has to show that humans are the cause. If any tests show that humans are not the cause, then, at best, the theory is questionable. Please show me the documentation that proves conclusively, in EVERY test, that humans are the sole cause of global warming.
@B17Boy You are trying to apply a standard that is absurdly high -- and which ignores the fact there is no alternative theory that even comes close. Climate Change is the consensus because, by far, it best explains the evidence. If you or any denier can come up with a theory that ever better fits the facts then fine, show it. Otherwise, shut up -- we can't just change the rules of science whenever we like if and when it produces an idea we'd rather not be true. Facts are facts -- accept it!
@Ranillon - Consensus is NOT science. Consensus is politics. I would point you to the speeches of Dr. Michael Crichton, but his heirs have removed them from his website. The only ones changing the rules of science are the Climate Change/Global Warming crowd. They have a political agenda and any data that does not support it is ignored. That is NOT science. If the data don't support your beliefs, too bad. And there's nothing absurdly high about good scientific standards.
@B17Boy Wrong again. Consensus is what defines crank or simply unproven theories from the truly scientifically strong ideas. "Scientific consensus" means that the vast majority of the experts in the field agree with that theory. A theory CANNOT RECEIVE a greater vote of confidence. The only way that Anti-AGW exists is by using NON-scientic, psuedo-scientifical flim-flam to try to trick prople into believing things other than what they really are by using paranoid conspiracy theories.
@Ranillon 40 years ago the 'scientific concensus' was that the dinosaurs were made extinct by excessive volcanic activity. Now the 'scientific concensus' is that an asteroid impact caused their extinction. As little as 10 years ago, the 'scientific concensus' was that only DNA passed down information. Now the 'scientific concensus' is that RNA passes down information as well. Hundreds of years ago, 'scientific concensus' said the Sun revolved around the Earth. Oops. Concensus does not mean RIGHT
@Willaev This is a strawman argument. One, most of the instances you meantion were NEVER any real consensus, but are strawman examples made up to make science look bad. Two, you miss the fact that if the consensus does change it does so according TO THE FACTS. That is, no consensus is wrong until PROVEN wrong. But, AGW-Deniers just want to jump to the "wrong" part without actually coming up with the FACTS to PROVE it wrong. Until AGW-Deniers do that their arguments are WORTHLESS!!!
@Ranillon Fact: AGW is a hypothesis. Not scientific law. Fact: There is no link between temperature increases and CO2. Fact: 2% of the atmosphere is GHG, 3.6% is CO2, 3.4% of CO2 is manmade. Fact: Climate change has happened since there was a climate, long before humanity, and long after. Fact: Consensus is not science, or truth, or fact. Fact: Members of a consensus always accuse their detractors as being "deniers of truth/fact/science".
6) Actually AGW is a theory, similar to how heliocentrism and general relativity are theories which are based on laws and observations.
7) Part of the reason why we know it's carbon gases that are a result of the change in temperatures in the most recent history is because of where and when it's warming the fastest
8) Stating that it has happened is pointless without the context of knowing why it happened and how we know why it happened and if it's the same today.
@garith21 AGW is a "theory" in the same way that creationism or faith healing or three card Monty is a "theory". It's a fantasy belief system without a shred of evidence that it's anything that should be taken seriously, even though lots of suckers believe it's real. There is no evidence what so ever that CO2 plays ANY part in determining the earth's temperature. There is some evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to changes in temperature.
1) There's an abundance of evidence for it just like for evolution
2) pointing out that CO2 was a previous amplifier doesn't mean "it has no affect on temperatures"
3) if you want one example of your idiocy try reading the study that's quoted for the CO2 following temperatures rather than having people point you at the charts with no context, but I guess reading's hard, better to just chant "it's all a lie"
@garith21 Funny how you sheep and parrots who haven't done the research and don't understand the science, thinks we who have done the research and do understand the science are idiots because we don't believe in your religion. You are just like the fundy Baptists who use methods identical to yours.
Oddly enough I've read a lot of the peer reviewed literature, I'm willing to bet that you've only had it fed to you by people like Monckton who deliberately misrepresent scientific papers despite being corrected by the people that he claims to use for references because he either doesn't understand the science or he's being deliberately dishonest. Have you ever read the paper or just looked at the chart and said "I don't need to read it, dur hur"
@garith21 Do yourself a big favor and stay out of the casino. Your betting skills are almost as bad as your logic. Unlike you sheep and parrots I've been reading the reports since the 70s. When many were predicting global cooling and new ice ages, they were at least a little more credible. I laughed at the crackpots when they started promoting their magic CO2 BS. And I am still waiting for one of them to come up with any evidence to support it.
"reading reports" doesn't mean reading peer reviewed literature, if it were true that you were actually reading the peer reviewed literature, most during the 70's predicted warming, a whole 7 studies predicted cooling out of about a total of 70 peer reviewed literature, most predicted warming or no change, however generally speaking the scientific community admit that it didn't know enough to pose the right questions.
@garith21 Big words like "reports" over you head, huh? In the 70s the peer reviewed publications claiming doomsday religious dogma like global warming and global cooling were few and far between. There were articles discussing potential issues, particularly regarding pollution. But most of those involving global climate were geological or astrophysical. Climatology was an obscure field, leftist university activists had yet to notice it was a handy tool for suckers.
1) "Articles" are not peer reviewed literature and you obviously haven't read the peer reviewed literature which you obviously haven't read at all.
2) Absorbing IR light is a property of CO2, despite all ghgs being "only trace gases" they are why we don't become frigid when the sun sets like on the dark side of mercury
3) pointing out that "in the past it followed temperatures" is looking at a chart of a peer reviewed study, read the study.
@garith21 I suggest you read some peer reviewed pubs of the 70s, and earlier, and compare them to today's. Most of science is still science, but some fields have been taken over by frauds scamming for cash or peddling agendas. Climatology today is run almost entirely by left wing activists and charlatans. There's no way for anyone in the field to make a living without tax dollars and support from socialist activists. The peers are what they used to be, nor are there any standards.
@garith21 Many are. Many are socialist activists. Carl Sagan is an example of that. Bust Sagan was honorable enough not to fake his science to peddle his politics or to scaremonger for more funding.
Let's make it simple. You keep claiming your priests have proven your religion to be real and that they've published the data so many times. So how about you just point me to it. Surely in al those publications, you can find one. Go ahead, just one with ANY data indicating AGW isn't BS.
I'm willing to guess that you've probably just had idiocy given to you by scientific illiterates like "lord" monckton and trumpet around "I know the science", tell ya what, since you resort to sources that don't require much reading try visiting potholer54's channel, he not only asks for responses from Monckton directly he shows references and direct quotes from the peer reviewed literature, not only from the same studies Monckton claims to get his info from, but Monckton himself.
@garith21 Yeah, as is he case with all religious fanatics, your beliefs are derived from guesses and proclamations from priests, most of which are either frauds or kooks. Your guesses wouldn't get you far in a casino. You are batting zero so far. I took at look at potholer54's channel and watched the first 6 minutes of "the objections". Just one misstatement and redirection after another, and inaccurate assumptions. And "refuting" facts by pointing to his priests, just like you do.
4) So why don't you list any? He lists peer reviewed literature indicates the correction when data was available (keep in mind it's the same people that did the original study). He even shows you direct quotes from the peer reviewed literature and gives you references so you can read it yourself. It seems it's "only science if it confirms what I already believe" and a conspiracy if it isn't.
@garith21 To the crackpots, the only defining characteristic of "science" is peer review". And, of course, that depends on the peers and the publisher. If they are making their living peddling the same lie, do you really think they'll oppose it? The Bible is peer reviewed. So are the official publications of many pseudoscience groups peddling everything from astrology to homeopathy. (Continued...)
So apparently all of the most prestigious science journals in existence and every national science organization is a part of some pseudoscientific conspiracy, because obviously NASA, NOAA, the USGS, the national snow and ice data center would have nothing to do if global warming weren't around. I guess the Journal Nature, Science and other misc. journals are all "pseudoscience". Stop using creationist style attacks and back up your words.
@garith21 Chiropractic started out as total 100% bogus pseudoscience BS quackery. They've tried to go legit recently, and have adopted some legit scientific treatments and practices, but are still steeped in the same pseudoscience they've practiced and has peer review for many decades. The problem with the Magic CO2 religion is that there's no oversight. The socialists scream bloody murder is anyone suggests outside policing and auditing them. Yet they leech tax dollars.
If you don't believe me you can read the National academy of science's statement on global climate change during 1975, I suspect that you don't really care about reading what actual scientists said on the matter and will refer to "reading reports" like the times magazine or some other idiotic piece of general media which don't require a scientific understanding to comment on any topic.
@garith21 You assume so much that makes you look silly. I don't care what the pop media publishes. They'd blame the imaginary warming on the Bat Boy. :) But I care what actual scientists find, not what pseudoscience crackpots and frauds like Mann and Hansen claim. If they can't show their data, if it's not repeatable, if it can't predict, then it's complete BS, not science. The Academy sacrificed it's credibility on the political alter a few years ago. It's no longer scientific.
9) Asserting everything you say is fact doesn't make it a fact
10) Why resort to political tricks of vagueness, lack of context and using general media rather than referring to scientific literature.
11) Most scientists were skeptical about AGW till around the 90's when the last bits of evidence came in which made it a convincing proposition to believe based upon the evidence.
@Ranillon You forget that the rhetoric changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' as soon as the temperature decline started. That way, no matter what happens to the climate, its our fault. Clever, eh? Just admit its a religion, I promise I won't be prejudiced. :P
@raptor731 Yet another bit of misinformation and nonsense. Your accusation is pure bunk. The only one talking "religion" is you as you just keep on offering up long disproven arguments and simple AGW-Denier hokem. Try actually reading about the subject, study the science, and then get back to us. Until then, the more you post such obvious nonsense the more your just demonstrate your ignorance and inability to accept reality.
@Ranillon Oh really? I have studied the science extensively, and probably know MUCH MORE than you. Debate me...it should be fun, and educational for everyone else. You are the one spouting misinformation....
You're incapable of understanding averaging and how it applies to observations of climate change, keep raising discredited hypothesis and "facts" which are just plain wrong. There's no point talking to someone who is either incapable of understanding basic maths or science, or who is unwilling to look at facts over just parroting denier blogosphere spin, PS scientists aren't the people who set taxes, your comment is nonsensical, check out how much money goes into supporting fossil/nuclear
Yeah, you've found the conspiracy, congratulations.Pity you haven't searched for the petro $ being poured into PR, haven't looked at the memos setting up the "climate change is not happening/science is uncertain" PR blitz. Or the documented $ flowing to the gun for hire "experts" you listen to. Oh, and have you heard of the difference between weather (short term) and climate (long term)? Or the process of averaging to get long term trends? PS WA has just lost most of wheat crop from drought.
.The Sun's energy output has been constant (in fact slightly falling) while the temperatures continue to rise in the oceans and across the planet. Greenhouse gases keep the world from being a snowball (look it up), so it is just plain wrong that only the sun controls the climate- the facts are that NONE of the other factors that have caused major climate changes in the past are in effect now- the only one that is rising in sync with temperatures is CO2- a gas with known greenhouse properties!
Green plants mean only two parts per 1,000,000 carbon dioxide in the evening air. And have done fall last 200 years -according to Harvard University. Man-made global warming and climate change are fiction from nuclear power
"And have done fall last 200 years -according to Harvard University."
You are retarded aren't you?
Actual direct measurements of spectra, have shown that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has nearly doubled. Even if the number seems small, it actually represents teratons of the gas.
@JonThm Yes and we need oxygen, but try to breathe a 100% oxygen atmosphere and see how far you get. Your argument doesn't hold up- "more is better" does not follow automatically. In fact, recent studies show that more CO2 results in more foilage but less protein in the plant (=less food, get it?), and more plant toxins that are harmful to animals that eat the plants.
What seems more likely, That all the scientific bodies that study climate change have all abandoned any integrity and sold out for mythical funding for a politically driven worldwide fraud OR climate scientists who study this for a living across the globe are reporting on a cause and effect of man 's large sale addition of CO2 in our atmosphere, while those who are negatively affected by the news would launch a giant PR campaign just like the tobacco lobby did just a couple decades ago.
Oh joy! Stupid and deluded people think Hitler references are funny when they lie about science. AGW is real. In reality, as opposed to Fox, the past decade was the warmest on record and the caps really are melting. You can find that from very available data from NASA NOAA the US Navy and many other organizations that aren't propagandists for oil companies.
@spin12, I was advocate of global warming before I woke up to the 50 trillion tax scam. You should too. Investigate decadal oscillation. The sharp CO2 rise after WWII accompanied by global cooling for 30 years is another eye opener. Then climategate leaks will show how how they been corrupting data and stiffing adversary. If you still not convinced then listen to Doctor Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author... watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI
@0urGaia "Climategate" is a non-event, just scientists occasionally using colloquialisms and being loose with words when talking to friends and colleagues. Multiple independent investigations have found NOTHING that the CRU scientists did was wrong, or invalidated the science they had produced. So get over it and stop embarrassing yourself when you raise the hacked emails as some sort of proof of conspiracy.
@indulis1, Multiple independent studies also found that the tobacco industry wasn't doing anything wrong until decades of "conspiracy theorist" hacked into their secrets as well, so try spin your bullshit elsewhere pal. They were caught red handed fudging data to promote a new tax.
@0urGaia No hacked the tabocco industry. Doctors saw massive rises in lung cancer and the first reports were in the 50s. As to the "hack" of climate emails, it is true that if you take three years worth of correspondence, sift through them for quotes to take out of context and present them to morons like you, some of those morons like you will believe there is something wrong.
@spin12, fudging data is not same as out of context quotes. Even Russian climatologist are asking why their data was cherry picked to show weather rising not falling. Google "SECRET PAPERS SHOW TOBACCO LAWYERS' POWER" Minnesota judge charged the tobacco firms with a "conspiracy of silence...the industry shaped scientific research to support its case that smoking wasn't unhealthy.
Sound familiar, you need take off the rose colored glasses mate, our world is ruled by those that kill for profit.
@026SH So what is to blame? Cosmic rays, a warming sun, volcanoes? The trouble is that NONE of the factors which could be causing warming are increasing. Which leaves us with man-made CO2, with known warming characteristics, and which actually fits the observations. Wishing it wasn't so won't make it go away.
@indulis1, The sun rules our weather, Nasa identified that heavy sun spot cycles actually causes increased energy warming the earth. Global warming itself is the sham, earth itself has been cooling since 2001. Look see a new study by scientist at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee they used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years. There studies show we went from warming regime to a cooling regime in 2001.
@0urGaia MLEASURED solar incidence on the earth vs global temperatures, pretty clear that your idea doesn't match the facts h t t p : // w w w . s k e p t i c a l science. c o m / solar- activity- sunspots- global- warming. h t m
@indulis1, that site shows warming trend, now map real temperature next to solar activity and you will see truth. Google..."According to the U.S. National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country link. U.S. 2009 summer temperatures were also very cool, the 34th coolest since 1895"
Here in australia our drought has broken, Britain facing coldest winter in 100 years, hear snow storms in US bad this year.
@0urGaia .You probably don't get the joke from Garrison Keiler "Lake woebegone...where all the children are above average", and how it applies to your lack of understanding of basic things like averaging. Just keep blathering about how "it was colder than average in Nowheresville".
@indulis1, google "January 2010, the northern half of Europe experienced its coldest winters since 1981–1982" google "China Faces Coldest Winter in 40 Years", Google "Russian Winter Might be Coldest in 1000 Years".... No wonder global warming committee went to Mexico, only place get a sun tan.
@0urGaia Coldest single day temperature, or on average. On average for a city, or a country, or a country or the globe?No climate scientist says that ALL of the globe will ALL warm ALL at the same time. This is why global measurements are taken and used for advice to governments, and the global measurements are averaged over a number of years. See my previous post re the difference between climate and weather. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
@0urGaia For anyone who has an interest in the facts rather than just swallowing the denier PR, here is some info about how europe and the USA can have the coldest winter at the same time as the AVERAGE global temperature rises (i.e. it has risen in the arctic as hot air floods in to replace the cold air which caused the USA and European cold winter).
h t t p : / / climate crocks. c o m / 2 0 1 0/ 12/ 15/ j e f f- masters- on- winter- cold /
@indulis1, also google "Claims that New Zealand temperature record fudged". Amateur climatologist that had historic data also found they modified historic australia temperatures to show a nojn existent warming trend. Google "Russian weather data cherry picked by UK climatologists – report"
50 Trillion in new taxes brings a lot of lie's. We in more danger of new ice age that warming.
@0urGaia .Occam's razor (also restated by Einstein)- don't go with a complex explanation when a simple one explains it adequately. Instead of believing that CO2, a known greenhouse gas with measurable and known gheat trapping properties- is changing our atmosphere as we inject billions of tonnes of CO2 into it, you prefer to believe obscure explanations on the fringes of science. PS the chaos explanation relies extensively on denier-hated computer models.
@indulis1, quoting "occam's razor" for analyzing weather, thats a new one! CO2 does warm our atmosphere else life wouldn't exist. But 338 ppm kind of seems negligent compared to the 8000ppm of CO2 during carboniferous period when south pole was thought to be 8000 foot thick. Funny I didn't see 8000ppm in Al Gores infamous Hockey Stick but of cause that would have made it look laughable
@0urGaia, also historic records show that CO2 follows temperature rises not the other way around. As earth warms massive amounts of Co2 is released from siberian, alaskan permafrost's etc.
@0urGaia That old pathetic argument. It is called positive feedback, where 2 factors can influence each other. Again, a very simple concept- fire causes heat, heat causes fire, the two are linked. Debt causes increased interest payments, incfreased interest payments cause more debt. By your logic, because your first credit card bill's interest followed the debt, the interest can never add to the debt.
This video went viral on Podgorica
youngchampagne 2 weeks ago
No matter how many times I see these Downfall parodies, Goebbels' face at 1:03 always reminds me of Skeletor.
ParanoidGallows 2 weeks ago
This video is a favorite on Kampala
enriqueowens616 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
freakin brilliant
wkwickham13 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part A:
Denial: oi52.tinypic.
com/35c4ojm.jpg
Oceans: oi53.tinypic.
com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi52.tinypic.
com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/2reh021.jpg
Authority: oi52.tinypic.
com/jt1jxj.jpg
Prophecy: oi52.tinypic.
com/30bfktk.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/2wpmn83.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
Excellent :)
Kinkspace 8 months ago
As cohesive and consistent as...a 30-year cooling period in the middle of rising CO2. As cohesive and consistent as "We're not going to investigate other possible methods of warming, as they don't fit into our political agenda." As cohesive and consistent as "Anyone who disagrees with us is a holocaust denier, paid off by the corporate lobbyists. As cohesive and consistent as, "We need to ignore opposing data, and inflate data we like to scare the shit out of people, so they'll -have- to act."
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
This has been a repeated assertion that statisticians during blind studies reject, even over the last 10 years the trend has been up. How on earth is it cooling if the last few years on the instrumental record are record highs? Where on earth do you get your information from? Lastly, if you want a response hit the reply button
garith21 10 months ago
@Willaev
If you're referring to the period where aerosols were particulate matter blocking out sunlight masking the effect of ghgs for a few decades, well that doesn't prevent the basic mechanism of CO2 resulting in rising temperatures with similar solar irradiance and albedo. That argument would make about as much sense as "heaters don't work because you can open the window and make it cooler"
garith21 10 months ago
@topographicoceans11 Yeah, you sound like all other religious zealots. We'll look just as silly when Jesus returns. I'll stick to science. You can keep your Magic CO2, your Jesus, your gosts and goblins and everything else supernatural. If you want to worship Magic CO2 and pray for a cooler planet, go ahead. Just stay out of my wallet and don't expect me to follow your religion too.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
man you're just fucking stupid, CO2 absorbs long wave radiation, basic observable fact that's been known for over 100 years, children even reproduce this for science projects, mythbusters did a show on it, this results in additional heat, this isn't fucking magic, it's basic physics that children can comprehend but you can't because you're so heavily in denial.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 CO2 is also plant food. This results in the production of oxygen. This has been known for centuries. Children learn this in school too!! It isn't fucking magic. It's basic biology that children can comprehend but you can't because you're so heavily in denial.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
The fact that CO2 is a component in photosynthesis doesn't mean it ceases to have other properties like absorbing long wave radiation. Why you state such a point is moronic as saying electricity doesn't work because it can stop your heart.
garith21 10 months ago
@Willaev
Such a moronic line of argumentation. Hey, Oxygen isn't required for a combustion reaction because it's part of the respiratory cycle, look at me I'm using your line of argumentation to point out how stupid your reasoning is. Are you really convinced by such stupid lines of reasoning?
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 No, which is why I'm a skeptic of your religion.
Willaev 10 months ago
@garith21 And if you're offended by such a line of reasoning, don't use it yourself, then criticize me for it. Typical attitude of the eco-ligion nuts that drove me to question this 'climate change' bullshit after you -almost- had me believing.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
I don't find the "line of reasoning" offensive, I find it moronic, materials don't lose any negative benefits just because they're part of another cycle which was your precise reasoning. I point out that the basic mechanism is so easily verifiable that children do it for science projects and you say it's used for photosynthesis, so what, that's as stupid as saying you can't drown because we need to drink water.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 I agree that it is stupid to say that you can't drown because we need to drink water. It's also stupid to even try to use that as an analogy to my argument. When I drink more water than my body can handle, it doesn't grow more of me to handle the increased supply. When you increase CO2, more plants grow to consume it. This has, previously, led to an overpopulation of plant life and over-consumption of atmospheric CO2, resulting in an ice age.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
1) CO2 concentrations have been increasing, while more plants are growing there are many other carbon sinks reaching their limits and actually less able to absorb CO2 due to temperature increases, such as the ocean.
2) It was a perfect analogy for your argument as you implied that because it's used for photosynthesis that we either can't have to much of it or that it ceases having negative effects because it's required for life, it's merely pointing out the idiocy of your argument.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Yes, it's far more idiotic than asserting that a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world. I bow to your ultimate wisdom. Allow me to cease talking with yet another religious zealot.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
Thanks for the strawman, name one person that states that "a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world". Why is it that you have to resort to being so dishonest time and time again and resort to such moronic arguments in order to attempt to have a discussion? Also glad to see you admit that your idiotic reference is in fact more idiotic than a position no one holds, cheers to the religious denier, just like a creationist denying evolution.
garith21 10 months ago
James Hansen, George Monbiot, David Suzuki, for starters. Grist, Drudge. Again, thank you for proving your religious fanaticism to Gaia. Not once did I mention anything about creationism or evolution, nor did I mention anything about my religious preference. Which is -zero-, by the way. But your fanaticism ASSUMES that I must be some biblethumping christian. Sorry to disappoint your shallow mind, retard.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
1) Actually in peer reviewed publications they don't, I don't really give much of a shit of their personal opinions as those aren't peer reviewed.
2) Obviously you're too stupid to realize that your fanaticism in regards to denial of scientific facts and information is identical to that of a creationist as is your tactics. It doesn't require you be a "biblethumping chrisitian" just a fanatic with no critical thinking skills or understanding.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven. Your argument otherwise just proves your lack of critical thinking skills or understanding.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
It's a scientific theory in the same way that the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and atomic theory are theories. It explains observed facts and laws in a cohesive and consistent which is why it's believed that AGW is the best explanation for the most recent warming, since most of it is basic physics, you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory.
garith21 10 months ago
"you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory."
AGW isn't a "Thnoery" yet
It's a Hypothises of Consensus of opinion based on the Corolation of Estimated average CO2 rise"observed" at the Keeling station vs observable Tempature rise in the "AGT" from about 40 weather stations in the Upper Temparate region
Next step of the Scientific Method is verifying and testing for the cause and effect of co2 on heat and actually linking co2 rise to humans
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Responding to something that was posted 4 months ago? Seriously.
Anyways the actual mechanism for CO2 causing a net increase of energy has been known and tested for over a hundred years, it's pretty basic, you add energy to a system you get increased heat, it isn't that complicated.
garith21 6 months ago
"AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven"
It's what the consensus of opinion was for,to get funding from the governments to verify and test for agw and to determine 1) if it exists, 2) if so,how bad and 3) potential impact
The "A-Train" Began launching in 2008 first starting with the Canadian Co2 monotoring orbitor (CanX-2) then Japan's (Ibuki) witht the Next Generation Weather Sattilites Starting launch in July 2010
The'll test if predictions match real map
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
@garith21 I deny BS. Your religion is no better than any other. Yes, CO2 absorbs long wave radiation. So do many other things which are too tiny in volume to matter. Your religion preaches that Magic CO2 even as an insignificant trace gas over rides the vast effects of water vapor and controls the climate of the planet, even going back in time to do so since CO2 has always followed temperature. Go learn some physics before attempting to teach it, Dumbass.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
Water vapor easily condenses out of the atmosphere unless there's another warming effect forcing the atmosphere to get warmer before hand. The reason why water vapor isn't seen as a forcing is because it's short lived unless something warms the air first, that's why it's seen as a factor in sensitivity and not a forcing.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Yes, something has to warm the air for the water to evaporate. If you've ever looked in the sky during the day, you see this big yellow ball up there? Contrary to the claims of your priests, it has something to do with it. Curiously enough, it's also why CO2 is in a vapor state on most bodies in our solar system too. There's also the internal heat of some, like the earth.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
1) While the sun is a significant factor in climate you can't say "the sun is changing the climate" when it's activity has been relatively stable over the last 50 years.
2) CO2 merely absorbs the available long wave radiation, on a snowball earth with little long wave radiation to absorb requires a vast amount of ghgs to swing it out of a snowball earth since the reflectivity of the earth would be very high
garith21 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
"going back in time to do so since CO2 has always followed temperature."
Go back to snowball earth, the only reason we're not still a frozen ice ball is because of GHGs getting in such high concentration that it overcame the albedo of a solid ice planet and swung the earth in the other direction. If the mechanism of CO2 being able to cause a warming didn't exist with the given solar irradiation we would still be a snowball earth today.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Like I said, CO2 has always followed temperature. Even your Pope Gore's own goofy graph showed that. As for the "Snowball Earth" incidents, the last one was during the Neoproterozoic, the one before that was 2 billion years ago. CO2 was a significant component of Earth's atmosphere during those periods. But even then the evidence suggests it was methane, not CO2 which was important in the change, and triggered by vulcanism, as was the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED, it not lead.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom Yes, and you know what their response to 'CO2 following temperature'? "The oceans soak up most of the CO2 to a certain point until it is unable to contain the CO2 any longer due to heat/acidity, which takes 600-800 years, and massively releases the CO2 which causes a huge increase in temperature." By that logic, the recent increases in temperature shouldn't be happening for another 500-700 years.
Willaev 10 months ago
"CO2 has always followed temperature"
But since the Politicians ask physists,whjo have a lot of time on their hands,instead of a vulcanologist...who is either near in a volcano the why,they got the "AGW" bullshit the Physists pull out of their ass via thumping on Svante
The Earth's core is like a pressure cooker and comes more hot when plate tectonics doesn't let it vent then releases heat as it does
COre pluming =interglaciation
COre Waning =Ice Ages
co2,methane,etc vents WITH the heat
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"But even then the evidence suggests it was methane, not CO2 which was important in the change, and triggered by vulcanism, as was the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED"
no,no
Co2,the most infamous of the "GHG"S is in the thousands of trillions of tons in the Oceans, with thousands of trillion of tons more of it in the icy deep seas and trillions of trillions of it in the earth itself
As the core plumes in interglaciation it releases heat and co2 via increased tectonics from earth and deep sea
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
"the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED, it not lead."
Right
The thing never discussed about co2 is that 1) it is extremely tempature sensitive and,more importantl 2) It is heavier then air and only rides up into the air on the evaporation/percipitation cycle within the water vapor
When there is "Global Warmiong" the co2 coming out of the deep earth and from the ocean floor is carried by the ocean cuurent to the surface then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back down
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
"then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back d"
The Average estimated Co2 that the Keeling station uses is just that...an average
That 390ppm is made by taking the air sample at a certain time of day,at a certain altitude,at a certain wind speed,at a certain tempature,and at a certain humidity
second by second and minute by minute variations in CO2 ppm in air varies from 0ppm to 900ppm as wind,tempature,and humidity changes along with evaporation/percipitation
TheRealArchAngel 6 months ago
@wrjamescom
"Go learn some physics before attempting to teach it"
Physics and "common sense" are 2 different things, I'm merely telling you the mechanism is the ability for it to absorb long wave radiation and it's so easily verifiable that children can do it for science experiments, it's not magic. It's even so easy to verify in tiny water bottles with CO2 being added into the air contained within it as it's volume, and we add gigatons of it into the air.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 A child can also light a fart. And the atmosphere contains both methane and oxygen. By your religion's reasoning, that means the earth might blow up any second. Children can also boil water and see that the energy pumped into it doesn't raise it beyond the boiling point, that it produces vapor, and the vapor condenses. Any child can see what clouds to to sunlight. The interaction of the suns energy and water regulates earth's temperature. CO2 is irrelevant in Earth's system.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
3) none of your idiocy or strawmen gets rid of the basic mechanism of CO2 as a driver in climate when all other relevant factors are the same, you can't blame long term deviations on short term cyclical variations, which is all that solar cycles and the el nino/la nina cycles are.
4) Clouds also retain long wave radiation that would otherwise go out into space, which is especially important at night
garith21 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
5) The reason why water vapor isn't seen as a driver in climate as much as a feed back in climate is because in order for it to stay in the atmosphere for a long period of time the temperatures have to rise first, otherwise it quickly condenses so it's completely irrelevant to long term deviations in temperature as a driver.
garith21 10 months ago
When the earth cools, and people die because they were not prepared, everyone will be angry agw scientists. Too late then.
raptor731 10 months ago
dumb cuff
segrum 11 months ago
Should Romm instead of Revkin
SomeLittleShoe 11 months ago
@Ranillon Are you afraid to talk science with me? Are you worried that since I've studied AGW and still don't believe it, that I would win the argument?
raptor731 11 months ago 2
lexl,
This is a work of art! BRILLIANT!!!!!
Gos bless you man!
SomeLittleShoe 11 months ago
Guess what the most unscientific thing to say is? Call someone a 'climate denier'. Of course, that implies there are 'climate believers', making the whole blasted thing a religion instead of a science. How....primitive.
raptor731 11 months ago
It has been proven time and time again throughout thousands of years of human history that 'scientific concensus' is a political argument that promotes oppression of ideas.
Willaev 11 months ago
@Willaev Another complete strawman argument that at its core is anti-science since using this definition science is always wrong. No, in reality a scientific consensus means that a theory has the ABSOLUTE best backing and proof from science. The only way that changes is if a even better theory comes along to replace it. So, think AGW is all crap? Then PROVE IT!! Until then, you are just being anti-scientific and ignorant.
Ranillon 11 months ago
@Ranillon Fact: Climate scientists agree the planet has warmed. Fact: Climate scientists do -not- agree on the cause of the warming. Fact: Climate scientists do -not- agree on the significance of the warming. Fact: The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, not a scientific one. Fact: AGW-alarmist computer models have failed to predict every weather event, every dip in temperature of the last 10 years. Fact: Alarmist predictions in the 1970's said we'd be going into an ice age by 2000.
Willaev 11 months ago
@Willaev
1) Most scientists do agree that a majority of the warming is due to human activities.
2) Most studies indicate that a doubling of CO2 will result in a 2-4.5 degree global change in temperatures with a few outliers as low as .34 degrees to 10 degrees, but a majority of the studies indicate around 2-4.5 degrees
3) Read peer reviewed literature and not the IPCC then.
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21 If they were practicing science they'd publish their data instead of the conclusions they stated with.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@Willaev
4) Weather is chaotic, climate is relatively stable, it's why you don't stop calling deserts deserts because it flooded one day, all the same record cold temperatures are consistent with climate models and local anomalies are due to short cycled events, the global temperature on average has been rising.
garith21 11 months ago
@Willaev
5) Actually during the 70's we didn't know enough about the climate to declare much of anything, the peer reviewed literature states that a majority predicted warming, some predicted no change and very few predicted cooling. Even a statement by the National Academy of Science stated in their report in 1975 that "we do not yet know enough about our climate to ask the right questions"
garith21 11 months ago
@Willaev AMEN! I do not refer to these scammers as "scientists", it's an insult to anyone who practices the scientific method. The Magic CO2 religion's priests are no different from faith healers and other charlatans. They operate scams and rely on ignorant believers to pay them. But in this case, these scammers leech tax dollars. It amazes me that Michael Mann, Peter Popoff, Phil Jones, Jim Bakker, and James Hansen are still practicing their scams after being so clearly exposed.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom And just like chemtrail and UFO nuts who point at airliners and say "Government chemtrail plane/Alien spacecraft!!!", these AGW believers for some reason think the 'Burden of Proof' rests with the skeptics. 'Think AGW is crap? Prove it!!!' Okay, how about this. You think your AGW THEORY is scientific fact? PROVE IT!!! IT'S JUST A THEORY, YOU MORONS. That means it hasn't been proven to the standards of scientific evidence.
Willaev 10 months ago
@Willaev
1) There's the basic observation CO2 absorbs IR radiation which is retained as heat, this has been known for well over a hundred years.
2) Observations of when and where it is warming quickest is consistent with AGW
3) The observations are not consistent with any other forms of warming
4) There are tons of scientific peer reviewed papers on the matter, but I suspect you haven't actually read a one your ignorance on a scientific theory is also indicative of your ignorance of science.
garith21 10 months ago
@Willaev AGW isn't evan valid as a scientifc theory. No more so that the "theory" of creation by gods. Even if CO2 released by man has magic properties that control the earth's temperature in spite of the water and the sun, and even goes back in time to do it making Al Gore's BS line up right, it's still identical to creationism and faith healing and psychic noinsense in that there can be no way to test the supernatural.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
it's not magic, it's absorption of IR radiation that would have otherwise gone back into space, most of this is basic physics you know. A layman's way of considering it would be as insulation. Again the basic concept of CO2 absorbing IR radiation has been known for over a hundred years, it was even proposed if CO2 concentrations were higher that it would get warmer assuming the same conditions otherwise.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Yeah, and pouring liquid into a body of water increases it's volume. But the same reasoning your magic CO2 religion used, a farmer adding a couple of cows to his land in Minnesota, because cows urinate and runoff enters the Mississippi river, should be worried about flooding New Orleans. CO2 is too tiny a trace gas in both volume and greenhouse characteristics to have even the slightest impact on earth's climate which is entirely controlled by the sun and water and geology.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@garith21 And for the pseudoscience of AGW to be true, the CO2 would have to have time travel capabilities, making effect precede cause. For millions of years rises and falls in temperature has preceded changes in CO2. So to claim the CO2 is the cause, is indeed a claim of magic.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
4) If you actually read the study and the basic physics it points out that tilting of the earth's orbit would only result in a very small amount of warming and wouldn't affect the entire globe, the release of gases such as CO2 was predicted to have an amplifying warming effect over time. Also Hansen et al was the one that called for more study on the topic which resulted in that study.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 I have read it, and it's so full of holes that a gradeschooler could see through it is the school systems hadn't dumbed them down and stopped teaching science. Of course the fraud Hansen called for more study! How do you think he gets our money? The first IPCC report actually didn't fudge any data, and the data they published showed no sign of AGW. Yet the report's conclusion was that it was real anyway and they needed more US tax dollars to find evidence.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
1) So "anyone that doesn't think the way I do is not doing science"
2) If they're so full of holes why is it you can't seem to point any out?
3) I just did you just said "it's part of a scientific conspiracy" sounds like you're the one being fundamentalist as you're defending your end the same way creationists do. "it's a scientific conspiracy, blah blah blah, your belief is a religion"
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Just for giggles, see if you can find ANY example of me EVER even using the term "scientific conspiracy". I never have, but you have. And now you are arguing against your own words. I do not consider faith healers or psychics or homeopathy, or chiropractic, or creationists or your Magic CO2 crackpot religion to be anything related to science, conspiratorial or not.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
When you assert that scientists as a whole are conspiring to make a pseudoscience to scare you into going green that is asserting a scientific conspiracy, since it's endorsed but every national science organization and by most scientific organizations in the world, you are asserting a global scientific conspiracy.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 No, YOU are the one talking conspiracy. Presumably you also think all Baptists are conspiring to take your money because they all invite you to their church and they all pass the plate. The Magic CO2 religion is no different from any other in that regard. It's not a conspiracy, just a collection of believers in something on blind faith without evidence, and they want others to become followers too. And like many, they try to squelch opposing voices.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@garith21 And while there are absolutely some small groups who have been caught conspiring to peddle your religion (The "climategate" scandal clearly demonstrated that), the religion is not one big conspiracy, but like psychics and homeopathy, dousing, remote viewing, and other pseudoscience, there are people who latch onto it for money and others who get involved in peddling it because it helps their causes, and lots of others who are just too ignorant to see how stupid it is.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
"climategate" was a non issue, as the physics of global warming is the primary reason why global warming is accepted, however there were many independent investigations that were done that came to the conclusion of no proof of fraud.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 That's total BS! There was no investigation. They just left the crooks make up statements and accepted it while ignoring the absolute proof of crimes and ethical violations staring them in the face. I read those emails and other documents and there's no way to define their actions as anthing other than outright fraud. They manipulated and falsified data to fit their agenda, they conspired to keep astual scientists from publishing their work, they defrauded taxpayers.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
"I read those emails and other documents and there's no way to define their actions as anthing other than outright fraud."
*rolls eyes* obviously reading something and not caring about the context out of thousands of e-mails and cherry picking a few statements means it's an absolute conspiracy, but who cares about context right?
Second of all did you actually read what happened?
garith21 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
In the case of the soon-balleonas paper they were discussing that there were so many errors in the paper because of their lack of understanding that it should have never reached publication, It however was addressed by the "evil IPCC" which didn't squelch it but addressed it head on. It's not like they're squelching works of christy or other actual practicing climatologists.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Oh please! Be serious. You didn't even read the documents and haven't paid any attention to what's been happening in the last 20 years if you believe that. They'd shut Christy up in a heart beat if they could, but his status and geography makes it impossible to do so without getting mud on their faces. So they just lie about whet he (and others) say when they can get away with it.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
Actually there's no reason for them to, for the most part he's an actual practicing climatologist just like lindzen, why is it that there were no "conspiratory" e-mails talking about trying to silence actual people that know what they're talking about and criticisms are easily verifiable as public knowledge rather than some back door secrecy.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 They have Christy almost as much as McIntyre. But anyone who claims there were no conspiratory emails has not read the emails or is lying. Read them and try that claim again. For one of many examples, Mann and Jones in particular exchanged a number of them discussing using the scam "realclimate" site as a tool for fraud, disguising it as a "neutral site" while letting the scammers review posts and holding back posts to prevent scientists from contradicting their scam. Read them!
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom That was supposed to read "They hate Christy almost as much as McIntyre".
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
6) obviously you didn't read the e-mails Christy is in rather frequent communication with CRU
7) I've read the e-mails in context rather than out of context and I've also examined what has happened in real life to see what action was really taken. You're merely looking for any way to bend something to say "look it's a conspiracy" without any critical analysis what so ever.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Most of the public is scientifically ignorant in the extreme. That's why people buy into such nonsense, buying copper bracelets and "detox" foot pads, and Magic CO2. Read your spam. Those crooks aren't one big group conspiring to sucker you into trying to increase your penis size. They are a thousand different crooks hoping you are stupid so they can take advantage of you. If there was no money or use to socialists in Magic CO2, they wouldn't be promoting that one either.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@garith21 And I never said anyone that doesn't think like me isn't doing science. But your priests absolutely make that statement every day. In reality, anyone not practicing the scientific method is NOT doing science. That includes your priests. Mann, Hansen, and their ilk are not scientists, they are frauds.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
Why you're referring to popular media canards when talking about science only makes me giggle.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 We aren't talking about science. We are discussing the Magic CO2 religion and the frauds and idiots who are promoting it.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@garith21 As for the holes, they are obvious to anyone with a background in science. Hell, anyone familiar with refrigeration can see through most of it! But listing them and explaining them here with a limit of a few hundred characters isn't practical. But it's up to those making extraordinary claims (like doomsday BS) to show their data. I have yet to see any, and no one else has either. I've been telling people for years to be a hero and be the first. No takers so far.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
I find it amazing for as much as you profess to have any that you still have to list even one, much less a few or all.
Second of all most aren't making some "we're all going to die in a few decades" predictions as you seem to be asserting, where do you even read this stuff? I'm still waiting for even one peer reviewed paper you claimed to have read or any problems in the material already presented.
garith21 10 months ago
@Ranillon I know more, and love more science than you do. I am a nerd. You're just sheep.
Willaev 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"98% of climate scientists believe we're warming the planet!" Once again, you have the sheep quoting from the same poll that's been quoted by every other sheeple in the world. The same poll that's been dismissed by scientists because the questions it asks are muddy. Climate scientists agree the planet is warming. They DO NOT agree that it is caused by man. They're about 50/50 on that. That is not concensus.
Willaev 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"98% of climate scientists believe we're warming the planet!" Once again, you have the sheep quoting from the same poll that's been quoted by every other sheeple in the world. The same poll that's been dismissed by scientists because the questions it asks are muddy. Climate scientists agree the planet is warming. They DO NOT agree that it is caused by man. They're about 50/50 on that. If 50 doctors tell me my kid needs an operation, and 50 say no..I'm gonna get more opinions.
Willaev 11 months ago
Globe not warming = Everything is fine, we can just keep consuming and producing mass quantities of waste, because obviously if the globe isn't warming now, IT NEVER WILL, even as the human population continues to increase.
Staunts 11 months ago
I really don't know if I should thumbs up this for entertainment or thumbs down for complete lack of scientific understanding. I wonder if the creator really thinks that climate change is a hoax funded by some invisible hand for the sake of turning profit or it all this is satire?
jrm102 1 year ago
Global warming? yes.
Man-made? No
Do a youtube/google search for 'interplanetary climate change'. It's not just Earth, it's every planet in the solar system that's warming up.
Bonez0r 1 year ago
@Bonez0r the real science looks at all the factors and adjusts for such variables. don't listen to the uneducated dbags that don't have the data, look at the peer reviewed scientific studies that are undeniable. they are out there if people were only willing to look.
WhrsTheMoneyLabowski 1 year ago
@Bonez0r "Interplanetary climate change" is a complete myth, if for no other reason our knowledge of the climate on other planets is as yet so primitive that we can't make anything more than educated guesses. Oh, and there is also the little fact that the Sun has not been putting out any meaningful increase in energy -- a fact that we can measure >directly< thanks to satellites.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Bonez0r Yeah, the 400+ degree surface temperature on Venus must be part of this.
Muad420 1 year ago
For a theory to be scientific, it must be able to be proven false. Because, it just might be. AGW is not science because it's devotees claim that wetter, dryer, hotter, colder -- that everything proves AGW. Find any truely scientific theory and you will see that it can be proven false. Not so with AGW.
Also, for a theory to be scientific, you must test and retest and get reproducible results. Computer models are not data because the data vary widely and mean nothing.
B17Boy 1 year ago
@B17Boy Again, this is completely bogus. Human caused Climate Change >is< falsifiable, namely by someone coming up with a better explanation. Your claim is just that -- a declaration made without any good basis that relies on fundamentally misunderstanding what science is.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon - Not the way the climate change nazis tell it. Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace said that global warming can mean colder, hotter, wetter, drier. If everything proves global warming, then it's not science. If global warming could only be proved by warmer temps, then there would be an element of science to it because colder temps would disprove it.
Now, with "climate change" how would know? Change means just that; hotter, colder, wetter, drier. There's no science there.
B17Boy 1 year ago
@B17Boy I am amazed you would even try such an argument -- what, climate change is "disproven" because you can play around with word definitions? What matters is the SCIENCE and it is quite clear -- man-made climate change is very real and poses a threat to the future. You are relying on easy ad hominem insults and playing with definitions to dismiss entire schools of science that provide mountains of evidence for AGW. Stop believing in easy insults and look at the real evidence!
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon - For something to be science, it must be falsifiable, and you must have reproducible results in testing. That is, every test has to show that humans are the cause. If any tests show that humans are not the cause, then, at best, the theory is questionable. Please show me the documentation that proves conclusively, in EVERY test, that humans are the sole cause of global warming.
See this: tinyurl dot com slash 3xyjrys
About 2 minutes in.
B17Boy 1 year ago
@B17Boy You are trying to apply a standard that is absurdly high -- and which ignores the fact there is no alternative theory that even comes close. Climate Change is the consensus because, by far, it best explains the evidence. If you or any denier can come up with a theory that ever better fits the facts then fine, show it. Otherwise, shut up -- we can't just change the rules of science whenever we like if and when it produces an idea we'd rather not be true. Facts are facts -- accept it!
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon - Consensus is NOT science. Consensus is politics. I would point you to the speeches of Dr. Michael Crichton, but his heirs have removed them from his website. The only ones changing the rules of science are the Climate Change/Global Warming crowd. They have a political agenda and any data that does not support it is ignored. That is NOT science. If the data don't support your beliefs, too bad. And there's nothing absurdly high about good scientific standards.
B17Boy 1 year ago
@B17Boy Wrong again. Consensus is what defines crank or simply unproven theories from the truly scientifically strong ideas. "Scientific consensus" means that the vast majority of the experts in the field agree with that theory. A theory CANNOT RECEIVE a greater vote of confidence. The only way that Anti-AGW exists is by using NON-scientic, psuedo-scientifical flim-flam to try to trick prople into believing things other than what they really are by using paranoid conspiracy theories.
Ranillon 1 year ago
@Ranillon 40 years ago the 'scientific concensus' was that the dinosaurs were made extinct by excessive volcanic activity. Now the 'scientific concensus' is that an asteroid impact caused their extinction. As little as 10 years ago, the 'scientific concensus' was that only DNA passed down information. Now the 'scientific concensus' is that RNA passes down information as well. Hundreds of years ago, 'scientific concensus' said the Sun revolved around the Earth. Oops. Concensus does not mean RIGHT
Willaev 11 months ago
@Willaev This is a strawman argument. One, most of the instances you meantion were NEVER any real consensus, but are strawman examples made up to make science look bad. Two, you miss the fact that if the consensus does change it does so according TO THE FACTS. That is, no consensus is wrong until PROVEN wrong. But, AGW-Deniers just want to jump to the "wrong" part without actually coming up with the FACTS to PROVE it wrong. Until AGW-Deniers do that their arguments are WORTHLESS!!!
Ranillon 11 months ago
@Ranillon Fact: AGW is a hypothesis. Not scientific law. Fact: There is no link between temperature increases and CO2. Fact: 2% of the atmosphere is GHG, 3.6% is CO2, 3.4% of CO2 is manmade. Fact: Climate change has happened since there was a climate, long before humanity, and long after. Fact: Consensus is not science, or truth, or fact. Fact: Members of a consensus always accuse their detractors as being "deniers of truth/fact/science".
Willaev 11 months ago
@Willaev
6) Actually AGW is a theory, similar to how heliocentrism and general relativity are theories which are based on laws and observations.
7) Part of the reason why we know it's carbon gases that are a result of the change in temperatures in the most recent history is because of where and when it's warming the fastest
8) Stating that it has happened is pointless without the context of knowing why it happened and how we know why it happened and if it's the same today.
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21 AGW is a "theory" in the same way that creationism or faith healing or three card Monty is a "theory". It's a fantasy belief system without a shred of evidence that it's anything that should be taken seriously, even though lots of suckers believe it's real. There is no evidence what so ever that CO2 plays ANY part in determining the earth's temperature. There is some evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to changes in temperature.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
1) There's an abundance of evidence for it just like for evolution
2) pointing out that CO2 was a previous amplifier doesn't mean "it has no affect on temperatures"
3) if you want one example of your idiocy try reading the study that's quoted for the CO2 following temperatures rather than having people point you at the charts with no context, but I guess reading's hard, better to just chant "it's all a lie"
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Funny how you sheep and parrots who haven't done the research and don't understand the science, thinks we who have done the research and do understand the science are idiots because we don't believe in your religion. You are just like the fundy Baptists who use methods identical to yours.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
Oddly enough I've read a lot of the peer reviewed literature, I'm willing to bet that you've only had it fed to you by people like Monckton who deliberately misrepresent scientific papers despite being corrected by the people that he claims to use for references because he either doesn't understand the science or he's being deliberately dishonest. Have you ever read the paper or just looked at the chart and said "I don't need to read it, dur hur"
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Do yourself a big favor and stay out of the casino. Your betting skills are almost as bad as your logic. Unlike you sheep and parrots I've been reading the reports since the 70s. When many were predicting global cooling and new ice ages, they were at least a little more credible. I laughed at the crackpots when they started promoting their magic CO2 BS. And I am still waiting for one of them to come up with any evidence to support it.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
"reading reports" doesn't mean reading peer reviewed literature, if it were true that you were actually reading the peer reviewed literature, most during the 70's predicted warming, a whole 7 studies predicted cooling out of about a total of 70 peer reviewed literature, most predicted warming or no change, however generally speaking the scientific community admit that it didn't know enough to pose the right questions.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Big words like "reports" over you head, huh? In the 70s the peer reviewed publications claiming doomsday religious dogma like global warming and global cooling were few and far between. There were articles discussing potential issues, particularly regarding pollution. But most of those involving global climate were geological or astrophysical. Climatology was an obscure field, leftist university activists had yet to notice it was a handy tool for suckers.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
1) "Articles" are not peer reviewed literature and you obviously haven't read the peer reviewed literature which you obviously haven't read at all.
2) Absorbing IR light is a property of CO2, despite all ghgs being "only trace gases" they are why we don't become frigid when the sun sets like on the dark side of mercury
3) pointing out that "in the past it followed temperatures" is looking at a chart of a peer reviewed study, read the study.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 I suggest you read some peer reviewed pubs of the 70s, and earlier, and compare them to today's. Most of science is still science, but some fields have been taken over by frauds scamming for cash or peddling agendas. Climatology today is run almost entirely by left wing activists and charlatans. There's no way for anyone in the field to make a living without tax dollars and support from socialist activists. The peers are what they used to be, nor are there any standards.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
"I suggest you read some peer reviewed pubs of the 70s, and earlier, and compare them to today's."
Please list a few that you've "read" your continuing to spout off complete ignorance indicating you haven't read a damn thing that was peer reviewed
"Climatology today is run almost entirely by left wing activists and charlatans."
I suppose statisticians in blind studies, cosmologists and many other fields are in on the marxist plot as well right?
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Many are. Many are socialist activists. Carl Sagan is an example of that. Bust Sagan was honorable enough not to fake his science to peddle his politics or to scaremonger for more funding.
Let's make it simple. You keep claiming your priests have proven your religion to be real and that they've published the data so many times. So how about you just point me to it. Surely in al those publications, you can find one. Go ahead, just one with ANY data indicating AGW isn't BS.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
I'm willing to guess that you've probably just had idiocy given to you by scientific illiterates like "lord" monckton and trumpet around "I know the science", tell ya what, since you resort to sources that don't require much reading try visiting potholer54's channel, he not only asks for responses from Monckton directly he shows references and direct quotes from the peer reviewed literature, not only from the same studies Monckton claims to get his info from, but Monckton himself.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Yeah, as is he case with all religious fanatics, your beliefs are derived from guesses and proclamations from priests, most of which are either frauds or kooks. Your guesses wouldn't get you far in a casino. You are batting zero so far. I took at look at potholer54's channel and watched the first 6 minutes of "the objections". Just one misstatement and redirection after another, and inaccurate assumptions. And "refuting" facts by pointing to his priests, just like you do.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
4) So why don't you list any? He lists peer reviewed literature indicates the correction when data was available (keep in mind it's the same people that did the original study). He even shows you direct quotes from the peer reviewed literature and gives you references so you can read it yourself. It seems it's "only science if it confirms what I already believe" and a conspiracy if it isn't.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 To the crackpots, the only defining characteristic of "science" is peer review". And, of course, that depends on the peers and the publisher. If they are making their living peddling the same lie, do you really think they'll oppose it? The Bible is peer reviewed. So are the official publications of many pseudoscience groups peddling everything from astrology to homeopathy. (Continued...)
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
So apparently all of the most prestigious science journals in existence and every national science organization is a part of some pseudoscientific conspiracy, because obviously NASA, NOAA, the USGS, the national snow and ice data center would have nothing to do if global warming weren't around. I guess the Journal Nature, Science and other misc. journals are all "pseudoscience". Stop using creationist style attacks and back up your words.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Chiropractic started out as total 100% bogus pseudoscience BS quackery. They've tried to go legit recently, and have adopted some legit scientific treatments and practices, but are still steeped in the same pseudoscience they've practiced and has peer review for many decades. The problem with the Magic CO2 religion is that there's no oversight. The socialists scream bloody murder is anyone suggests outside policing and auditing them. Yet they leech tax dollars.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@wrjamescom
If you don't believe me you can read the National academy of science's statement on global climate change during 1975, I suspect that you don't really care about reading what actual scientists said on the matter and will refer to "reading reports" like the times magazine or some other idiotic piece of general media which don't require a scientific understanding to comment on any topic.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 You assume so much that makes you look silly. I don't care what the pop media publishes. They'd blame the imaginary warming on the Bat Boy. :) But I care what actual scientists find, not what pseudoscience crackpots and frauds like Mann and Hansen claim. If they can't show their data, if it's not repeatable, if it can't predict, then it's complete BS, not science. The Academy sacrificed it's credibility on the political alter a few years ago. It's no longer scientific.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
@Willaev
9) Asserting everything you say is fact doesn't make it a fact
10) Why resort to political tricks of vagueness, lack of context and using general media rather than referring to scientific literature.
11) Most scientists were skeptical about AGW till around the 90's when the last bits of evidence came in which made it a convincing proposition to believe based upon the evidence.
garith21 11 months ago
@Ranillon You forget that the rhetoric changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' as soon as the temperature decline started. That way, no matter what happens to the climate, its our fault. Clever, eh? Just admit its a religion, I promise I won't be prejudiced. :P
raptor731 11 months ago 2
@raptor731 Yet another bit of misinformation and nonsense. Your accusation is pure bunk. The only one talking "religion" is you as you just keep on offering up long disproven arguments and simple AGW-Denier hokem. Try actually reading about the subject, study the science, and then get back to us. Until then, the more you post such obvious nonsense the more your just demonstrate your ignorance and inability to accept reality.
Ranillon 11 months ago
@Ranillon Oh really? I have studied the science extensively, and probably know MUCH MORE than you. Debate me...it should be fun, and educational for everyone else. You are the one spouting misinformation....
raptor731 11 months ago
You're incapable of understanding averaging and how it applies to observations of climate change, keep raising discredited hypothesis and "facts" which are just plain wrong. There's no point talking to someone who is either incapable of understanding basic maths or science, or who is unwilling to look at facts over just parroting denier blogosphere spin, PS scientists aren't the people who set taxes, your comment is nonsensical, check out how much money goes into supporting fossil/nuclear
indulis1 1 year ago 2
Yeah, you've found the conspiracy, congratulations.Pity you haven't searched for the petro $ being poured into PR, haven't looked at the memos setting up the "climate change is not happening/science is uncertain" PR blitz. Or the documented $ flowing to the gun for hire "experts" you listen to. Oh, and have you heard of the difference between weather (short term) and climate (long term)? Or the process of averaging to get long term trends? PS WA has just lost most of wheat crop from drought.
indulis1 1 year ago
.The Sun's energy output has been constant (in fact slightly falling) while the temperatures continue to rise in the oceans and across the planet. Greenhouse gases keep the world from being a snowball (look it up), so it is just plain wrong that only the sun controls the climate- the facts are that NONE of the other factors that have caused major climate changes in the past are in effect now- the only one that is rising in sync with temperatures is CO2- a gas with known greenhouse properties!
indulis1 1 year ago
Green plants mean only two parts per 1,000,000 carbon dioxide in the evening air. And have done fall last 200 years -according to Harvard University. Man-made global warming and climate change are fiction from nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
"And have done fall last 200 years -according to Harvard University."
You are retarded aren't you?
Actual direct measurements of spectra, have shown that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has nearly doubled. Even if the number seems small, it actually represents teratons of the gas.
spin12 1 year ago
"In India, claims that the glaciers will soon melt have been proven conjectural"
Sorry - they've merely revised the time line
"In the Netherlands, claims that 50% of the country is below sea level have been exploded"
Sorry - no one ever claimed that 50% of the country is below sea level -
27% of the country is below sea level and 60% of the POPULATION of the country live in areas that are below sea level
Why are you guys listening to Hitler?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Life is driven by free carbon dioxide in the air. Plants take it in to grow.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Yes and we need oxygen, but try to breathe a 100% oxygen atmosphere and see how far you get. Your argument doesn't hold up- "more is better" does not follow automatically. In fact, recent studies show that more CO2 results in more foilage but less protein in the plant (=less food, get it?), and more plant toxins that are harmful to animals that eat the plants.
indulis1 1 year ago
What seems more likely, That all the scientific bodies that study climate change have all abandoned any integrity and sold out for mythical funding for a politically driven worldwide fraud OR climate scientists who study this for a living across the globe are reporting on a cause and effect of man 's large sale addition of CO2 in our atmosphere, while those who are negatively affected by the news would launch a giant PR campaign just like the tobacco lobby did just a couple decades ago.
coolgreyoneabby 1 year ago
Ugh,....just watch potholer54's series on Climate Change. Get a dose of reality. There are crazies on both sides, get the actual science from him.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Electromagnetism is a money-making theory. Big time. (Has nothing to do with whether it's true or not.)
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare Huh?
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004
The point is that whether a theory makes money or not has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.
odenskrigare 1 year ago
Oh joy! Stupid and deluded people think Hitler references are funny when they lie about science. AGW is real. In reality, as opposed to Fox, the past decade was the warmest on record and the caps really are melting. You can find that from very available data from NASA NOAA the US Navy and many other organizations that aren't propagandists for oil companies.
spin12 1 year ago
@spin12, I was advocate of global warming before I woke up to the 50 trillion tax scam. You should too. Investigate decadal oscillation. The sharp CO2 rise after WWII accompanied by global cooling for 30 years is another eye opener. Then climategate leaks will show how how they been corrupting data and stiffing adversary. If you still not convinced then listen to Doctor Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author... watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia "Climategate" is a non-event, just scientists occasionally using colloquialisms and being loose with words when talking to friends and colleagues. Multiple independent investigations have found NOTHING that the CRU scientists did was wrong, or invalidated the science they had produced. So get over it and stop embarrassing yourself when you raise the hacked emails as some sort of proof of conspiracy.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1, Multiple independent studies also found that the tobacco industry wasn't doing anything wrong until decades of "conspiracy theorist" hacked into their secrets as well, so try spin your bullshit elsewhere pal. They were caught red handed fudging data to promote a new tax.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia No hacked the tabocco industry. Doctors saw massive rises in lung cancer and the first reports were in the 50s. As to the "hack" of climate emails, it is true that if you take three years worth of correspondence, sift through them for quotes to take out of context and present them to morons like you, some of those morons like you will believe there is something wrong.
spin12 1 year ago
@spin12, fudging data is not same as out of context quotes. Even Russian climatologist are asking why their data was cherry picked to show weather rising not falling. Google "SECRET PAPERS SHOW TOBACCO LAWYERS' POWER" Minnesota judge charged the tobacco firms with a "conspiracy of silence...the industry shaped scientific research to support its case that smoking wasn't unhealthy.
Sound familiar, you need take off the rose colored glasses mate, our world is ruled by those that kill for profit.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@spin12 Global Warming and AGW are two different things, a melting ice cap isn't the proof humans are to blame.
026SH 1 year ago
@026SH So what is to blame? Cosmic rays, a warming sun, volcanoes? The trouble is that NONE of the factors which could be causing warming are increasing. Which leaves us with man-made CO2, with known warming characteristics, and which actually fits the observations. Wishing it wasn't so won't make it go away.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1, The sun rules our weather, Nasa identified that heavy sun spot cycles actually causes increased energy warming the earth. Global warming itself is the sham, earth itself has been cooling since 2001. Look see a new study by scientist at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee they used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years. There studies show we went from warming regime to a cooling regime in 2001.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia MLEASURED solar incidence on the earth vs global temperatures, pretty clear that your idea doesn't match the facts h t t p : // w w w . s k e p t i c a l science. c o m / solar- activity- sunspots- global- warming. h t m
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1, that site shows warming trend, now map real temperature next to solar activity and you will see truth. Google..."According to the U.S. National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country link. U.S. 2009 summer temperatures were also very cool, the 34th coolest since 1895"
Here in australia our drought has broken, Britain facing coldest winter in 100 years, hear snow storms in US bad this year.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia .You probably don't get the joke from Garrison Keiler "Lake woebegone...where all the children are above average", and how it applies to your lack of understanding of basic things like averaging. Just keep blathering about how "it was colder than average in Nowheresville".
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1, google "January 2010, the northern half of Europe experienced its coldest winters since 1981–1982" google "China Faces Coldest Winter in 40 Years", Google "Russian Winter Might be Coldest in 1000 Years".... No wonder global warming committee went to Mexico, only place get a sun tan.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia Coldest single day temperature, or on average. On average for a city, or a country, or a country or the globe?No climate scientist says that ALL of the globe will ALL warm ALL at the same time. This is why global measurements are taken and used for advice to governments, and the global measurements are averaged over a number of years. See my previous post re the difference between climate and weather. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
indulis1 1 year ago 2
@0urGaia For anyone who has an interest in the facts rather than just swallowing the denier PR, here is some info about how europe and the USA can have the coldest winter at the same time as the AVERAGE global temperature rises (i.e. it has risen in the arctic as hot air floods in to replace the cold air which caused the USA and European cold winter).
h t t p : / / climate crocks. c o m / 2 0 1 0/ 12/ 15/ j e f f- masters- on- winter- cold /
indulis1 1 year ago 2
@indulis1, also google "Claims that New Zealand temperature record fudged". Amateur climatologist that had historic data also found they modified historic australia temperatures to show a nojn existent warming trend. Google "Russian weather data cherry picked by UK climatologists – report"
50 Trillion in new taxes brings a lot of lie's. We in more danger of new ice age that warming.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia .Occam's razor (also restated by Einstein)- don't go with a complex explanation when a simple one explains it adequately. Instead of believing that CO2, a known greenhouse gas with measurable and known gheat trapping properties- is changing our atmosphere as we inject billions of tonnes of CO2 into it, you prefer to believe obscure explanations on the fringes of science. PS the chaos explanation relies extensively on denier-hated computer models.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1, quoting "occam's razor" for analyzing weather, thats a new one! CO2 does warm our atmosphere else life wouldn't exist. But 338 ppm kind of seems negligent compared to the 8000ppm of CO2 during carboniferous period when south pole was thought to be 8000 foot thick. Funny I didn't see 8000ppm in Al Gores infamous Hockey Stick but of cause that would have made it look laughable
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia, also historic records show that CO2 follows temperature rises not the other way around. As earth warms massive amounts of Co2 is released from siberian, alaskan permafrost's etc.
0urGaia 1 year ago
@0urGaia That old pathetic argument. It is called positive feedback, where 2 factors can influence each other. Again, a very simple concept- fire causes heat, heat causes fire, the two are linked. Debt causes increased interest payments, incfreased interest payments cause more debt. By your logic, because your first credit card bill's interest followed the debt, the interest can never add to the debt.
indulis1 1 year ago 2