Any doubts about Climate Change?

**Boon Mee** · 17-01-2015, 10:52 AM

The Climateistas arguments are all falling apart as more folks recognize the science is far from settled...

**Necron99** · 17-01-2015, 11:06 AM

For all the hype and hysteria it's all very simple.
1.We breath the air, do you think it is a good idea to allow the unregulated contamination of the air with non breathable compounds and gasses?
2. Forests both produce oxygen and store harmful gases and promote biodiversity. Do you think it is a good idea to allow the continued clearing without regeneration of old growth forests?
3. The ocean both produces oxygen and stored harmful gasses. Is the continued overfishing, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the oceans resulting in enormous dead zones where all life has been destroyed and the giant pacific garbage patch a good idea?

The world in general and the West in particular has reached a level of prosperous consumption that cannot be sustained at the cheap prices of today. A new phone every year, a new computer every 2, eating out of season cherries that have been flown half way around the world, all at the cost of destroying the planet we live on and expecting our descendants to pick up the tab.

They will look back on us as greedy, selfish twats. Much the same as when we look at tintypes of loggers cutting down 20ft wide redwoods or think of the sailors killing the last of the dodos.
But hey, as long as your BigMac doesn't cost more than a buck fifty, and the plasma on the the back of your toilet door is as big as possible, who cares?

**bsnub** · 17-01-2015, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Why don't you comment on the facts of the post

There are no facts in the article. Scientists have already said that the data from the satellites is from far up in the atmosphere and is not indicative of the warming that is going on below in the lower atmosphere were we live. This is just bunk.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

rather than the author, and how much do you actually know about the author and how much he has studied about what he wrote.

Well if you are going to take the word of a lawyer over a unanimous scientific community then something is wrong with you. OH wait I forgot you are a creationist. That explains it.

**Boon Mee** · 17-01-2015, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Necron99

For all the hype and hysteria it's all very simple.
1.We breath the air, do you think it is a good idea to allow the unregulated contamination of the air with non breathable compounds and gasses?
2. Forests both produce oxygen and store harmful gases and promote biodiversity. Do you think it is a good idea to allow the continued clearing without regeneration of old growth forests?
3. The ocean both produces oxygen and stored harmful gasses. Is the continued overfishing, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the oceans resulting in enormous dead zones where all life has been destroyed and the giant pacific garbage patch a good idea?

The world in general and the West in particular has reached a level of prosperous consumption that cannot be sustained at the cheap prices of today. A new phone every year, a new computer every 2, eating out of season cherries that have been flown half way around the world, all at the cost of destroying the planet we live on and expecting our descendants to pick up the tab.

They will look back on us as greedy, selfish twats. Much the same as when we look at tintypes of loggers cutting down 20ft wide redwoods or think of the sailors killing the last of the dodos.
But hey, as long as your BigMac doesn't cost more than a buck fifty, and the plasma on the the back of your toilet door is as big as possible, who cares?

But in the end, don't buy the hype,

The real scientists are not the politically & money-motivated hysterics like Al Gore et. al.

**bsnub** · 17-01-2015, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The real scientists are not the politically & money-motivated hysterics like Al Gore

Who and were are these so called "real scientists"? They sure aren't the people writing the articles you post.

**Necron99** · 17-01-2015, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Necron99

For all the hype and hysteria it's all very simple.
1.We breath the air, do you think it is a good idea to allow the unregulated contamination of the air with non breathable compounds and gasses?
2. Forests both produce oxygen and store harmful gases and promote biodiversity. Do you think it is a good idea to allow the continued clearing without regeneration of old growth forests?
3. The ocean both produces oxygen and stored harmful gasses. Is the continued overfishing, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the oceans resulting in enormous dead zones where all life has been destroyed and the giant pacific garbage patch a good idea?

The world in general and the West in particular has reached a level of prosperous consumption that cannot be sustained at the cheap prices of today. A new phone every year, a new computer every 2, eating out of season cherries that have been flown half way around the world, all at the cost of destroying the planet we live on and expecting our descendants to pick up the tab.

They will look back on us as greedy, selfish twats. Much the same as when we look at tintypes of loggers cutting down 20ft wide redwoods or think of the sailors killing the last of the dodos.
But hey, as long as your BigMac doesn't cost more than a buck fifty, and the plasma on the the back of your toilet door is as big as possible, who cares?

But in the end, don't buy the hype,

The real scientists are not the politically & money-motivated hysterics like Al Gore et. al.

But it's not hype is it.

Deforestation is a fact. The role forests play in our ecosphere is a fact.
Soil salinity and soil loss is a fact.
Air pollution is a fact.
Ocean pollution and overfishing is a fact.

But you grab another big mac and answer "Yes" to all three questions......
Read up on the pacific garbage patch and tell me again if it's a good thing.....

**RPETER65** · 17-01-2015, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Why don't you comment on the facts of the post

There are no facts in the article. Scientists have already said that the data from the satellites is from far up in the atmosphere and is not indicative of the warming that is going on below in the lower atmosphere were we live. This is just bunk.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

rather than the author, and how much do you actually know about the author and how much he has studied about what he wrote.

Well if you are going to take the word of a lawyer over a unanimous scientific community then something is wrong with you. OH wait I forgot you are a creationist. That explains it.

Yes I am a creationist. Not that I am taking the word of a lawyer over anybody, just saying, did the recordings of climate temperatures begin in 1880 and did a mini ice age end in the same year, if so does it not make sense the earth would naturally begin warming the same time recordings began, yes or no.

**Boon Mee** · 17-01-2015, 02:03 PM

^
The answer is obviously "Yes" but don't look to get that admission from the 'usual suspects' as it doesn't fit their narrative.

**bsnub** · 17-01-2015, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes I am a creationist.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not that I am taking the word of a lawyer over anybody, just saying, did the recordings of climate temperatures begin in 1880 and did a mini ice age end in the same year

First off when this mini ice age ended is only an approximation and that approximation was 1850 not 1880. Wherever you got you data it was incorrect. So the answer to your question is NO. Scientists have long ago moved on from the idea that the sun causes global warming which is what you must believe if you think that planet is just warming back up from the mini ice age.

This is the problem when non-scientist deniers try and meddle in science. They have no clue what they are talking about, so the try and pose long dismissed theories to further there absurd beliefs. Just like creationists.

Some proof written by real scientists not lunatic deniers;

What caused the Little Ice Age? - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy

While temperatures rise, denialists reach lower - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy

**slackula** · 17-01-2015, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes I am a creationist.

I suppose I should not be surprised.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not that I am taking the word of a lawyer over anybody, just saying, did the recordings of climate temperatures begin in 1880 and did a mini ice age end in the same year, if so does it not make sense the earth would naturally begin warming the same time recordings began, yes or no.

Do you believe the world was ~5,900 years old in 1880? It makes a difference to how to answer your question.

**Umbuku** · 17-01-2015, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The only global temperature records that are fully transparent are satellite records in the lower atmosphere.

No they are most definitely not.
When measuring an average temperature for the entire globe there is land, ocean and air temperatures to consider. Of these three air is the most turbulent and the least constant. The oceans record a much more consistent temperature variation. You only have to see the effect the shifting polar vortex has had on North American winters recently to see that air measurements alone are not worth bupkiss. The article linked is being trumpeted around by the denilaist websites and on social media and is a perfect example of cherry picking one part of the temperature data and claiming it is representative of the whole data set. Blatantly duplicitous insidious disinformation.

So, from which part of the atmosphere do these satellites read the temperature?

**PlanK** · 18-01-2015, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Necron99

For all the hype and hysteria it's all very simple.
1.We breath the air, do you think it is a good idea to allow the unregulated contamination of the air with non breathable compounds and gasses?
2. Forests both produce oxygen and store harmful gases and promote biodiversity. Do you think it is a good idea to allow the continued clearing without regeneration of old growth forests?
3. The ocean both produces oxygen and stored harmful gasses. Is the continued overfishing, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the oceans resulting in enormous dead zones where all life has been destroyed and the giant pacific garbage patch a good idea?

The world in general and the West in particular has reached a level of prosperous consumption that cannot be sustained at the cheap prices of today. A new phone every year, a new computer every 2, eating out of season cherries that have been flown half way around the world, all at the cost of destroying the planet we live on and expecting our descendants to pick up the tab.

They will look back on us as greedy, selfish twats. Much the same as when we look at tintypes of loggers cutting down 20ft wide redwoods or think of the sailors killing the last of the dodos.
But hey, as long as your BigMac doesn't cost more than a buck fifty, and the plasma on the the back of your toilet door is as big as possible, who cares?

Totally agree.

But what you're talking about is overconsumption and pollution not GW.

**Takeovers** · 18-01-2015, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Plan B

But what you're talking about is overconsumption and pollution not GW.

The two are closely linked.

**PlanK** · 18-01-2015, 01:38 AM

^

I would say they're not, but to push a false MMGW agenda to further other aims is dishonest and corrupt.

**RPETER65** · 18-01-2015, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes I am a creationist.

I suppose I should not be surprised.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not that I am taking the word of a lawyer over anybody, just saying, did the recordings of climate temperatures begin in 1880 and did a mini ice age end in the same year, if so does it not make sense the earth would naturally begin warming the same time recordings began, yes or no.

Do you believe the world was ~5,900 years old in 1880? It makes a difference to how to answer your question.

What difference?

**S Landreth** · 18-01-2015, 09:22 AM

The new year brought us some bad news with the facts learned about the increasing warming of our planet due to human activity (mostly CO2) last year.

However it might have brought even worse news to the climate deniers. It seems the deniers have run out of excuses.

Just a reminder,….

Global warming made 2014 a record hot year

NASA and NOAA have just reported that global surface temperatures in 2014 were the hottest on record. That also means 2014 was the likely hottest the Earth has been in millennia, and perhaps as much as 100,000 years.

But what’s really remarkable is that 2014 set this record without the aid of an El Niño event. El Niño events create conditions in which sea surface and hence global surface temperatures are anomalously hot. We call this part of the Earth’s “internal variability” because these events just temporarily shift heat around between the ocean surface and its depths.

As this graphic shows, the last five record hot years of 2010, 2005, 1998, 1997, and 1995 were all assisted by El Niño events.

In contrast, 2014 had a slight cooling influence from La Niña-like conditions at the beginning of the year, a slight warming influence from El Niño-like conditions toward the end, and no net temperature influence from the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) for the year as a whole. 2014 was by far the hottest ENSO-neutral year on record, and the first year since 1990 to set a record without influence from El Niño.

1998, which saw the strongest El Niño on record, now falls to 5th-hottest year on record. The intense El Niño event made global surface temperatures in 1998 about 0.2°C hotter than they would have otherwise been. Due to human-caused global warming, ENSO-neutral years are now hotter than even the most intense El Niño years a decade or two ago. As NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt said,

This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases

As the above graphic shows, over the past 50 years, there has been the same 0.15–0.16°C per decade warming trend for La Niña years, for ENSO neutral years, and for El Niño years. So for example, an ENSO-neutral year today is about 0.25°C hotter than a similar year would have been in 1998. That’s why 2014 was hotter than 1998 despite the big difference in El Niño temperature influences between the two years.

This is all happening during a time when we’re constantly being bombarded with inaccurate claims of a global warming “pause.” These mistaken claims stem from the fact that the rate of global surface warming has slowed a bit over the past 15 years, in large part because we’ve seen more La Niña events and fewer El Niño events during that time, and also due to heightened volcanic activity.

In fact, at any point over the past five decades we can find a period during which global surface warming “paused.” Yet each such period was hotter than the last. That’s because each is just a temporary effect caused by a period with a predominance of La Niña events and other short-term cooling temperature influences. As this figure shows, underneath the short-term noise, human-caused global warming continues unabated.

Following the global surface temperature records set in 2005 and 2010, a new record in 2014 is right on schedule. A 2011 paper by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou found that as global warming continues, we should expect to set new records about once every four years.

Indeed, if we only use the data of the past 30 y, these show an almost linear trend of 0.017°C/y, yielding an expected 2.5 new record hot temperatures in the last decade [1 per 4 years].

Given that we may see an El Niño event in early 2015, there’s also a chance that this record could be short lived, and 2015 might break it once again.

On top of the record global surface temperatures, we also saw a record amount of heat accumulating on Earth, mainly in the oceans. According to NOAA, in 2014 the oceans accumulated an amount of heat equivalent to about 200 million atomic bomb detonations (13 zettajoules, or 13 billion trillion Joules). That’s about 6 to 7 atomic bomb detonations per second, on average, throughout 2014. That’s a lot of heat, likewise reaching record levels.

**Necron99** · 18-01-2015, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Plan B

Originally Posted by Necron99

For all the hype and hysteria it's all very simple.
1.We breath the air, do you think it is a good idea to allow the unregulated contamination of the air with non breathable compounds and gasses?
2. Forests both produce oxygen and store harmful gases and promote biodiversity. Do you think it is a good idea to allow the continued clearing without regeneration of old growth forests?
3. The ocean both produces oxygen and stored harmful gasses. Is the continued overfishing, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the oceans resulting in enormous dead zones where all life has been destroyed and the giant pacific garbage patch a good idea?

The world in general and the West in particular has reached a level of prosperous consumption that cannot be sustained at the cheap prices of today. A new phone every year, a new computer every 2, eating out of season cherries that have been flown half way around the world, all at the cost of destroying the planet we live on and expecting our descendants to pick up the tab.

They will look back on us as greedy, selfish twats. Much the same as when we look at tintypes of loggers cutting down 20ft wide redwoods or think of the sailors killing the last of the dodos.
But hey, as long as your BigMac doesn't cost more than a buck fifty, and the plasma on the the back of your toilet door is as big as possible, who cares?

Totally agree.

But what you're talking about is overconsumption and pollution not GW.

Fix the forests, fix the ocean, control pollution and make consumption sustainable and GW becomes a moot issue.

**PlanK** · 18-01-2015, 10:55 AM

^
Will make the planet a lot nicer place to live. Won't stop the Sun doing its cyclic thing but it will make it more bearable.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

But what’s really remarkable is that 2014 set this record without the aid of an El Niño event.

Millenia ago Europe was just a bunch of islands because of global warming and no ice-caps. But what's really remarkable is that was without the aid of humans.

I bet it was those dinosaur DMGW deniers that were to blame. Those damn oil companies must have been paying off the dinosaur scientists.

**blue** · 18-01-2015, 11:09 AM

**slackula** · 18-01-2015, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Yes I am a creationist.

I suppose I should not be surprised.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not that I am taking the word of a lawyer over anybody, just saying, did the recordings of climate temperatures begin in 1880 and did a mini ice age end in the same year, if so does it not make sense the earth would naturally begin warming the same time recordings began, yes or no.

Do you believe the world was ~5,900 years old in 1880? It makes a difference to how to answer your question.

What difference?

The difference that if you are willing to reject all the geological evidence for the age of the globe in favour of the writings by various ancient desert dwellers and umpteen priests with an ax to grind in an old book which claims to be the word of some deity even though it has been translated, interpreted, edited and otherwise mangled for 2,000 years in such a way that it is now chock full of contradictory statements and inconvenient bits that are just ignored then your question can be easily answered with "because I said so."

If, however, you reject that and accept that the earth is a bit older than the book says it is then the answer to your question has already been given numerous times in numerous places, this thread being just one of them and Google is your friend.

After that you can start to consider biopoiesis, evolution and why the book of Genesis might be slightly off on a couple of key points.

**blue** · 18-01-2015, 11:51 PM

Comic that you should deride Christians here just as the Pope joins your MMGW camp....
hahahaha
Maybe his support will make an alarm bell ring in your heads?
it should ,

Pope Francis says climate change is mostly man's fault

'I think man has gone too far,' Francis said

Lima climate summit result was disappointing, says Pope ahead of long-awaited encyclical on the environment

Pope Francis waded into the global debate about climate change on Thursday, saying that he believed that man was primarily responsible and that he hoped this year’s Paris conference would take a courageous stand to protect the environment.

The Pope said his long-awaited encyclical on the environment was almost finished and that he hoped it would be published in June, in time provide food for thought ahead of the UN climate meeting Paris in November.

Pope Francis says climate change is mostly man's fault | Environment | The Guardian

**Boon Mee** · 19-01-2015, 11:29 AM

Fraud Alert: NASA Scientist Admits Only 38% Chance 2014 Was Warmest Year

First we had the leaked UN emails showing how scientists were manipulating data to “prove” the existence of man-made Global Warming during Climategate then Climategate 2.0. Now, in 2015, there’s NASAgate, where NASA has embraced the spirit of Climate fraud in order to push forward the Climate Change agenda.

The Daily Mail reports that NASA’s claims stating that 2014 was the “warmest year on record” has a 62% chance of being wrong:

“The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

“In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

“The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

“Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

“As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.”

While NASAgate is likely to be ignored by those who worship at the altar of Global Warming, for those of us who know a lie when we see one, it is just more proof that, next to the flat earth theory, man-made Climate Change is the largest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind."

Fraud Alert: NASA Scientist Admits Only 38% Chance 2014 Was Warmest Year | Progressives Today

Imagine that!

**koman** · 19-01-2015, 12:01 PM

^
Very disturbing news Booners. Obviously we need a big new set of graphs with more colours and lots of rationalization and bullshit to contradict this admission.

Anyhow a 38% score is not too bad when you are trying to convince liberals that capitalists are destroying the world..... liberals and doomsday folk don't need passing grades....

A 38% maybe versus a 62% maybe not....will be good enough for the Al Gore groupies.....

Meanwhile it's fucking freezing; even here in the tropics this winter....

**Boon Mee** · 19-01-2015, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by koman

^
Very disturbing news Booners. Obviously we need a big new set of graphs with more colours and lots of rationalization and bullshit to contradict this admission.

Anyhow a 38% score is not too bad when you are trying to convince liberals that capitalists are destroying the world..... liberals and doomsday folk don't need passing grades....

A 38% maybe versus a 62% maybe not....will be good enough for the Al Gore groupies.....

Meanwhile it's fucking freezing; even here in the tropics this winter....

Coldest winter I've ever spent in LOS, that's for sure.

Was 18 C this am when I got up. brrrr...

**bsnub** · 19-01-2015, 12:08 PM

^^ More crap from the daily mail. A Murdoch rag with a long history of posting outright falsehoods regarding climate change.

Flatly wrong global warming denial - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy

Originally Posted by koman

capitalists are destroying the world

Only a blind fool could not see that.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions