Climate continues to change.

[Que]

Now that wasn't bad. Even tho you had to use mine and change the words a little.


I'l give you a C minus, only cause I grade on a curve...

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libs don't believe in the bell curve.

 

[pete]

Years from now, when the definitive history of global warming is written, Fox News will spin it as a cabal of 97% of the world's scientists thwarted by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies.

It's indicative of the conservative mindset that gay marriage threatens Murica more than global warming.

didn't al gore predict we'd all be dead by now?

if you can't trust unscientific politicians, who can you trust?

 

[Que]

didn't al gore predict we'd all be dead by now?

if you can't trust unscientific politicians, who can you trust?

Kind of inconvenient that we are still here.

Inconvenient the way that polar bears can swim.

 

[trysail]

Michael "Piltdown" Mann’s charlatanism

...He claims, without a shred of evidence, that extreme weather events are caused by human activity. That is not only anti-science; if there were any evidence for that, it would have been the source of dozens, if not hundreds of peer reviewed papers.

Mann does the same thing when he claims that human activity is the cause of global warming. That has always been his central premise. But where is the evidence? Where are the measurements??

There is zero evidence for that assertion. There are zero measurements. If something is scientific, then there must be verifiable, testable measurements quantifying it. Science is nothing without measurements. But with AGW, there are none. It is no more than an evidence-free conjecture. An opinion. A belief.

In fact, that is all that AGW is. If I am wrong, then someone needs to post measurements quantifying the specific extent of human-caused global warming. It is accepted that there has been about 0.7ºC of global warming over the past 150 years or so, from all sources. Of that amount, how much is due to human activity? THAT is the central question in the entire debate.

But no one has ever produced any testable, verifiable measurements of the extent of AGW. They say, “Half”. Or “Most”. But they never produce testable measurements showing how many tenths, or hundreths of a degree of that 0.7º warming were produced by human emissions. Do they?

No, they don’t. No one has produced any such verifiable, testable measurements. Everything is always a conjecture; an opinion. They are happy to post endless charts showing global warming to tenths and hundreths of a degree. But they have never measured the human contribution specifically. It is always simply assumed that human activity is the cause of global warming. Why does anyone put up with that evidence-free presumption?


​

-dbstealey
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/24/the-mann-talk-and-travel-day-open-thread/#comment-1746140

 

[trysail]

It's as plain as the nose on your face that climatology doesn't understand the climate system.


In light of that all-but-indisputable fact, one cannot help but view the pronouncements of certainty and the calls to act on climate with stunned disbelief.



​

 

[Sean Renaud]

I guess you didn't get the memo. Libs don't believe in the bell curve.

If anything you got your parties flipped. Not that I think anybody actually denies the bell curve at all.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

[thør]

New study claims ice sheets may be melting for centuries

 

[phrodeau]

Michael "Piltdown" Mann’s charlatanism

...He claims, without a shred of evidence, that extreme weather events are caused by human activity. That is not only anti-science; if there were any evidence for that, it would have been the source of dozens, if not hundreds of peer reviewed papers.

Mann does the same thing when he claims that human activity is the cause of global warming. That has always been his central premise. But where is the evidence? Where are the measurements??

There is zero evidence for that assertion. There are zero measurements. If something is scientific, then there must be verifiable, testable measurements quantifying it. Science is nothing without measurements. But with AGW, there are none. It is no more than an evidence-free conjecture. An opinion. A belief.

In fact, that is all that AGW is. If I am wrong, then someone needs to post measurements quantifying the specific extent of human-caused global warming. It is accepted that there has been about 0.7ºC of global warming over the past 150 years or so, from all sources. Of that amount, how much is due to human activity? THAT is the central question in the entire debate.

But no one has ever produced any testable, verifiable measurements of the extent of AGW. They say, “Half”. Or “Most”. But they never produce testable measurements showing how many tenths, or hundreths of a degree of that 0.7º warming were produced by human emissions. Do they?

No, they don’t. No one has produced any such verifiable, testable measurements. Everything is always a conjecture; an opinion. They are happy to post endless charts showing global warming to tenths and hundreths of a degree. But they have never measured the human contribution specifically. It is always simply assumed that human activity is the cause of global warming. Why does anyone put up with that evidence-free presumption?


​

-dbstealey
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/24/the-mann-talk-and-travel-day-open-thread/#comment-1746140

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Climate continues to change; religion never does.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Climate continues to change; religion never does.

No one is doubtin' the strength of your denialist faith, Chief.

 

[Que]

Absolute bullshit.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

You are answering the question of man caused warming by answering a completely different question, has man caused CO2 levels to rise?

Yes man has caused CO2... next question is why has an exponential rise in CO2 not caused a corresponding rise in temperatures?

If you cannot even show correlation between the two, you for damned sure cannot claim causation for something that has not yet happened.

As the article stated you can speculate that that is the future, but nothing measured so far demonstrates that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are answering the question of man caused warming by answering a completely different question, has man caused CO2 levels to rise?

Yes man has caused CO2... next question is why has an exponential rise in CO2 not caused a corresponding rise in temperatures?

If you cannot even show correlation between the two, you for damned sure cannot claim causation for something that has not yet happened.

When Denialists blather: "Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?"

Long story short: there IS a correlation between the two over time, but it's not at a 1:1 ratio.

 

[TwinkleStars]

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. This is no news, it's a fact. We will keep going on for so many more years. Doomsday shit is just that....shit.

 

[Que]

It isn't in ANY quantifiable ratio. In fact the current "evidence" such as it is suggests there is an upper limit beyond which even more CO2 will cause no additional warming. Too bad...cause apparently it will not prevent the next ice age.

No one suggests it should be one to one...stupid statement on its face...one to one what? Degrees Kelvin? Celsius? Fahrenheit.

Correlation (or lack of) is correlation (or not), whatever the numbers are. No correlation is just that. CO2 rising a lot, temperature rising not at all, to barely perceptibly. Most of the last hundred years rise in temperature is in years before CO2 rose substantially.

Instead of telling the skeptics what they they think it ought to be, why don't you work on the faithful's hymnal, because so far- it is a cacophony of individual, alarmist notes with no unified theory to predict anything other than that the sky is falling.

 

[phrodeau]

It isn't in ANY quantifiable ratio. In fact the current "evidence" such as it is suggests there is an upper limit beyond which even more CO2 will cause no additional warming. Too bad...cause apparently it will not prevent the next ice age.

No one suggests it should be one to one...stupid statement on its face...one to one what? Degrees Kelvin? Celsius? Fahrenheit.

Correlation (or lack of) is correlation (or not), whatever the numbers are. No correlation is just that. CO2 rising a lot, temperature rising not at all, to barely perceptibly. Most of the last hundred years rise in temperature is in years before CO2 rose substantially.

Instead of telling the skeptics what they they think it ought to be, why don't you work on the faithful's hymnal, because so far- it is a cacophony of individual, alarmist notes with no unified theory to predict anything other than that the sky is falling.

More bullshit. The temperature has gone up and stayed up. There hasn't been a below-average month in twenty-nine years. That's a fact that you have no evidence to refute.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. This is no news, it's a fact. We will keep going on for so many more years. Doomsday shit is just that....shit.

It isn't in ANY quantifiable ratio. In fact the current "evidence" such as it is suggests there is an upper limit beyond which even more CO2 will cause no additional warming. Too bad...cause apparently it will not prevent the next ice age.

No one suggests it should be one to one...stupid statement on its face...one to one what? Degrees Kelvin? Celsius? Fahrenheit.

Correlation (or lack of) is correlation (or not), whatever the numbers are. No correlation is just that. CO2 rising a lot, temperature rising not at all, to barely perceptibly. Most of the last hundred years rise in temperature is in years before CO2 rose substantially.

Instead of telling the skeptics what they they think it ought to be, why don't you work on the faithful's hymnal, because so far- it is a cacophony of individual, alarmist notes with no unified theory to predict anything other than that the sky is falling.

No one's claiming there's going to be a doomsday or the sky will fall. Things will just cost more money.

 

[Que]

No one's claiming there's going to be a doomsday or the sky will fall. Things will just cost more money.

Things will cost more only because people with no concept of cost benefit analysis will insist on changes that make NO rational difference int he world-wide levels of CO2, and that is only if CO2 levels even matter.

If every proposal this administration has suggested is implemented it will affect world co2 levels less than 2% at the MOST.

This will affect the poor and the elderly on fixed income the most. Why do you want grandma and the poor to freeze?

 

[Que]

More bullshit. The temperature has gone up and stayed up. There hasn't been a below-average month in twenty-nine years. That's a fact that you have no evidence to refute.

NEGLIGIBLY.

Cherry picking an obscure data point like "monthly below average records" is less than a red herring. the actual mean temperature temperature is less than 1 degree Celsius in a HUNDRED years.

Where the levels of Co2 is changed DRAMATICALLY.

What, it holds the heat in, but doesn't affect the temperature until some magic day when it does?

Why I even bother to post in a thread started by someone so ignorant on the entire subject of climate"continues" to change to think that anecdotes you can post throughout the year of day by day week by week year by year changes would have ANY meaning.

Climate has NOT changed measurably in your ENTIRE lifetime. And no a violent storm here or there is not "evidence" of some major climatic shift that is not reflected anywhere else in any of the sub-systems that make up weather.

Besides, people like you don't give a SHIT about future generations or you wouldn't encourage the wanton spending that you do.

MONEY will be the death of civilization, not fossil fuels.
When and if man's influence has any NOTICEABLE impact on ANY Eco-system on the planet will be long after any one man's lifespan.

You could argue MAYBE that 200-1000 or 10,000 years..but next week? You are an absolute moron.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Things will cost more only because people with no concept of cost benefit analysis will insist on changes that make NO rational difference int he world-wide levels of CO2, and that is only if CO2 levels even matter.

If every proposal this administration has suggested is implemented it will affect world co2 levels less than 2% at the MOST.

This will affect the poor and the elderly on fixed income the most. Why do you want grandma and the poor to freeze?

No. Things will cost more because there will be more or less of them. Less water means it's going to be more expensive. More hurricanes means more rebuilding.

It's already driven up everyone's grocery bill.

 

[Que]

No. Things will cost more because there will be more or less of them. Less water means it's going to be more expensive. More hurricanes means more rebuilding.

It's already driven up everyone's grocery bill.

No. We are continually making more of all things. There is plenty of water although clean, salt free water is going to get pricey ESPECIALLY when you anti-environmental wackos go on your silly anti-nuke tirades.

the reason groceries are high (although all you administration apologists deny that when it comes up in economic discussions because the CPI is a bullshit number) is because the administration will not kill ethanol subsidies that the last administration should have known better than to continue.

At this point even the anti-nuke type environmental wackos agree that ethanol is bad for the environment bad for the food supply and bad for the world.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41173

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

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/423385/ethanol-blamed-for-record-food-prices/


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/28/study-ethanol-mandates-causing-spiraling-us-food-prices

http://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices/foodforfuel/

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/27/want-cheaper-food-end-the-ethanol-mandat

This is what happens when government sticks its nose into markets... NO amount of $22 a gallon aviation fuel from corn distilled in the heartland and shipped to the coast is going to have ANY impact on global warming, although it WILL raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[phrodeau]

NEGLIGIBLY.

Cherry picking an obscure data point like "monthly below average records" is less than a red herring. the actual mean temperature temperature is less than 1 degree Celsius in a HUNDRED years.

Where the levels of Co2 is changed DRAMATICALLY.

What, it holds the heat in, but doesn't affect the temperature until some magic day when it does?

Why I even bother to post in a thread started by someone so ignorant on the entire subject of climate"continues" to change to think that anecdotes you can post throughout the year of day by day week by week year by year changes would have ANY meaning.

Climate has NOT changed measurably in your ENTIRE lifetime. And no a violent storm here or there is not "evidence" of some major climatic shift that is not reflected anywhere else in any of the sub-systems that make up weather.

Besides, people like you don't give a SHIT about future generations or you wouldn't encourage the wanton spending that you do.

MONEY will be the death of civilization, not fossil fuels.
When and if man's influence has any NOTICEABLE impact on ANY Eco-system on the planet will be long after any one man's lifespan.

You could argue MAYBE that 200-1000 or 10,000 years..but next week? You are an absolute moron.

Since the 1970's, ozone depletion has led to increased risk of skin cancer. That's very definitely within my lifetime.

http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index1.html

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/ozone/page/1389.aspx

 

[Que]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/hole-ozone-layer-recovery-2070_n_4441460.html

Pollution (which Co2 definitely is not) is not the same thing as "climate change"

the right wing wackos at huff-po thinks that is a non issue before the polar bears are apt to drown.

Nice deflection.

We are talking your assertion of man-caused changes to climate, not UV rays absorption happening within the foreseeable future, much less within the life-span of your thread.

"continues to change" implies a measurable change over some interval of time. Granite changes over time. Not in anyway you or I could ever measure as it happens.

 

[phrodeau]

http://news.asiaone.com/news/science-and-tech/global-wildlife-populations-down-half-1970

Global wildlife populations down by half since 1970
Reuters Tuesday, Sep 30, 2014

GENEVA - The world populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles fell overall by 52 per cent between 1970 and 2010, far faster than previously thought, the World Wildlife Fund said on Tuesday.

The conservation group's Living Planet Report, published every two years, said humankind's demands were now 50 per cent more than nature can bear, with trees being felled, groundwater pumped and carbon dioxide emitted faster than Earth can recover. "This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live," Ken Norris, Director of Science at the Zoological Society of London, said in a statement.

The main reasons for declining populations were the loss of natural habitats, exploitation through hunting or fishing, and climate change.

To gauge the variations between different countries' environmental impact, the report measured how big an "ecological footprint" each one had and how much productive land and water area, or "biocapacity", each country accounted for.

Kuwaitis had the biggest ecological footprint, meaning they consume and waste more resources per head than any other nation, the report said, followed by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. "If all people on the planet had the footprint of the average resident of Qatar, we would need 4.8 planets. If we lived the lifestyle of a typical resident of the USA, we would need 3.9 planets," the report said.

Many poorer countries - including India, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo - had an ecological footprint that was well within the planet's ability to absorb their demands.

The report also measured how close the planet is to nine so-called "planetary boundaries", thresholds of "potentially catastrophic changes to life as we know it".

Three such thresholds have already been crossed - biodiversity, carbon dioxide levels and nitrogen pollution from fertilisers. Two more were in danger of being breached - ocean acidification and phosphorus levels in freshwater. "Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on Earth," the report said.

 

[Que]

"...and climate change." What a bullshit, catch-all throwaway line.

What in the climate changed, exactly, during the referenced interval of time.

It is bullshit like this that leads to specious arguments like 97 percent of scientists agree. The person studying the biology is not a climatologist and they are claiming climate has something to do with it without citing actual climate change.

The World Wildlife Fund is to science, what your local collection plate at your Fundamentalist Church is to the research of the "science" of intelligent design.

But by all means send your offering to the World Wildlife Fund if the Holy Spirit of Gaia and that little fundraising sermon moved you.