Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Here's the problem Landreth. You post something from Nasa and expect us to believe it. A government Agency. When the US government is in cahoots with Gore in this big charade. After so much invested in the climate change scam, and now such huge financial rewards for them do you expect them to post something that goes against what they say?

Oh, and we'll be expecting your answers to Boons questions soon. After all, everything the climate change scammers predict always fails to happen and often quite the reverse.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

'Justice' & 'Equality' - two noble goals...

^ interesting point.

I agree full heartedly that it would be good if this push green meant less chemicals on the land and in the water table. Less Pollutants in the sea. but it doesn't. It is actually adding expense to the end consumers in the form of a carbon tax. It's a stealth tax, and the shame of it is that no one is reducing anything; they are trading the rights to pollute. And Gore gets richer.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I agree full heartedly that it would be good if this push green meant less chemicals on the land and in the water table. Less Pollutants in the sea. but it doesn't

Really? Do you have any facts to support this assertion?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I agree full heartedly that it would be good if this push green meant less chemicals on the land and in the water table. Less Pollutants in the sea. but it doesn't

Really? Do you have any facts to support this assertion?

I would say it doesn't simply because the same people pushing the green agenda are also involved in commercialism. They what more taxes to prevent disaster while pushing us to buy more.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

They what more taxes to prevent disaster while pushing us to buy more.

Buy more what? LED luminaries, solar panels, re-cycled products, non-polluting fuels? What a shame.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

They what more taxes to prevent disaster while pushing us to buy more.

Buy more what? LED luminaries, solar panels, re-cycled products, non-polluting fuels? What a shame.

Protest over factory pollution in E China enters third day|Society|chinadaily.com.cn

HANGZHOU – Hundreds of villagers in East China’s Zhejiang Province protested for the third day on Saturday at a solar panel manufacturer, whose parent is a New York-listed firm, over concerns of its harmful wastes.

More than 500 people from Hongxiao Village started to gather in front of the factory of Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co, Ltd located in the city of Haining on Thursday night, demanding explanation on the death of a large swath of fish in a nearby river last month, local officials said.

Angry protesters on Thursday stormed the factory compound, overturned eight company vehicles, and destroyed the offices before police came to disperse the crowd.

The protest continued on the two following nights with reports of scuffle, the officials said.

Chen Hongming, a deputy head of Haining’s environmental protection bureau, said the factory’s waste disposal had failed the pollution tests since April.

The environmental watchdog has warned the factory but it had not effectively controlled the pollution, Chen added.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co, Ltd, founded in 2006, is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-invested JinkoSolar Holding Co, Ltd (NYSE Stock Code: JKS), listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 2010.

You see.. all these clean tech product have a huge range of nasty pollutants that get dumps into the rivers / seas and land. They build the plants in Asia to get around the laws in the US that have not been lobbied away, but it still happens.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and we'll be expecting your answers to Boons questions soon. After all, everything the climate change scammers predict always fails to happen and often quite the reverse.

Still waiting with baited breath.

Meanwhile, 'Consensus' on Climate Change is 'Fake,' scientists say.


To follow up on what PD posted earlier...

A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."

The five signatories to the letter are: Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia
Professor Will Happer, Princeton University
Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford
Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
The letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so.

That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies.

The 160 signatories range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.
List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

See entire letter here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3606/Team-of-Scientists-Open-Letter-To-US-Senators-Claim-of-consensus-is-fake

Back in September, Climate Progress reported that the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 probe appeared to support the key conclusion of the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center: Arctic sea ice volume has been collapsing much faster than sea ice area (or extent) because the ice has been getting thinner and thinner.

Now the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the UK’s primary agency for funding and managing environmental sciences research, has made it official. In a Wednesday press release, they report:

Arctic sea ice volume has declined by 36 per cent in the autumn and 9 per cent in the winter between 2003 and 2012, a UK-led team of scientists has discovered….

The findings confirm the continuing decline in Arctic sea-ice volume simulated by the Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modelling & Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which estimates the volume of Arctic sea ice and had been checked using earlier submarine, mooring, and satellite observations until 2008.

This should be the story of the day, week, month, year, and decade. As NERC notes, sea ice volume is “a much more accurate indicator of the changes taking place in the Arctic.”

Many experts now say that if recent volume trends continue we will see a “near ice-free Arctic in summer” within a decade. And that may well usher in a permanent change toward extreme, prolonged weather events “Such As Drought, Flooding, Cold Spells And Heat Waves.”

It will also accelerate global warming in the region, which in turn will likely accelerate both the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet and the release of the vast amounts of carbon currently locked in the permafrost.

more: Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Here's the problem Landreth. You post something from Nasa and expect us to believe it.

I don’t expect Climate Deniers to believe anything I post. Remember the title of this thread:

Any doubts about Climate Change?

From the first post:

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Stick it.

This thread was intended for people who are still undecided.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

For those of you who are still undecided, keep reading.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and we'll be expecting your answers to Boons questions soon.

I hope you haven’t been holding your breath

As I have stated before on this thread:

Originally Posted by S Landreth

I don’t want to spend much time trying to debunk your post (or anyone else who post crap on this thread)

However on occasion I will.

Originally Posted by swampfox1001

The sun plays a bigger role in climate change than man!

Bullshit. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

In 2004, a group of researchers announced that the sun is increasingly active, and that a rise in the number of sunspots corresponds to the rise in temperatures over the last century. Of course, global warming skeptics jumped on this as an easy explanation for warming.

But the fact is, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend – in direct opposition to the warming trend on Earth. Naturally, the sun does have a lot of influence on the Earth’s climate, and during the 1150 years for which scientists have records, temperatures on this planet closelycorrelated with solar activity. It was right around 1960 that the Earth’s temperatures began to break away. Numerous peer-reviewed studieshave concluded that the sun’s role in warming trends is, in fact, negligible.

Support: Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model

Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.

In conclusion, our model results indicate that the range of NH-temperature reconstructions and natural forcing histories (cosmogenic isotope record as a proxy for solar forcing, and volcanic forcing) constrain the natural contribution to 20th century warming to be <0.2°C. Anthropogenic forcing must account for the difference between a small natural temperature signal and the observed warming in the late 20th century.

Ok - If Al Gore hands over all of the money he has made since his crusade to a truly independent save the polar bears fund and stop charging more than true expenses for giving a talk (so not 175,000 USD) I will believe you.

He's a crook though and came on the scene just as the REAL scientific community were telling the world what a load of shit it is.

Al Gore - he is involved and making millions and millions of dollars from it. His involvement destroy all credibility.

SL. I'm not sure whether I stand in awe of your determination to continue discussion on this subject here on TD - with the stated intention of informing the undecided (which, again, I'm not sure still exists in any notable numbers) or whether you just haven't learnt yet that discussing it is like discussing religion with an avid believer - it's just a frustrating and pointless exercise that will go in circles.

The issue is not facts, it is the vested interest in the status quo. It is not just large corps and big oil that have vested interests in this issue.

If BM, just as an example, has to accept the science he will have to change his whole outlook on life, capitalism and everything he holds dear.

Ain't gonna happen, even if hell freezes over.

The Al Gore mantra is a clue

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Yawn. The Center for American progress is not a Soros organisation, and violent crime stat's do go up in warmer weather (and full moons, apparently).

"We've got to stop being the party of Stupid"
Gov Bobby Jindal

Uh, sabang...these are the questions that need to be addressed:

10 killer questions for climate extremists | The SPPI Blog

I've always been with the sceptics- but not because I'm a climate change denier, that's just plain dumb. But we are not gonna stop climate change, and at best only incrementally reduce the amount of carbon emission from human activities (with minimal impact on short term climate trends)- so I suggest we should be devoting more effort to learning how to deal with it. If and when population shifts are entailed, this is no small measure. I certainly would not advocate crippling the world economy for a barely noticeable impact on the rate of climate change.

But efforts to pursue greener and more sustainable methods of energy production still get the thumbs up from this 'climate control' sceptic. We realistically can't and won't stop global warming, but we simply can't rely on oil as our primary source of energy forever.

Originally Posted by ENT

The green nutters you're on about were the ones who initially brought attention to climate change, so get off your high horse.

I was interested in recycling, solar energy and conserving energy long before the green movement even existed. These issues have been discussed a long time. They are nutters.

BTW My father was one of the first ever to insulate his house with styrofoam for heat retention. At the time there was not even specialized material available. He had to improvise.

Originally Posted by ENT

You mention creating cloud cover, well that will be the result of increased warming and evaporation of water, a balance will eventuate where increased cloud cover will cause solar radiation to be reflected away from the earth and simultaneously insulate the earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere which will then be further absorbed by the oceans.

It depends on the type and location of the clouds whether the effect of reflecting is larger than the effect of insulation or not.

Greened you because you at least have an opinion, not just a script from intentionally misleading websites.

You are still wrong though IMO.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and we'll be expecting your answers to Boons questions soon. After all, everything the climate change scammers predict always fails to happen and often quite the reverse.

Still waiting with baited breath.

Meanwhile, 'Consensus' on Climate Change is 'Fake,' scientists say.


To follow up on what PD posted earlier...

A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."

The five signatories to the letter are: Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia
Professor Will Happer, Princeton University
Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford
Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
The letter also notes that the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, did not sign the AAAS letter and states the society is "at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so.

That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies.

The 160 signatories range alphabetically from Harold M. Agnew, former White House science councilor and former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Martin V. Zombeck, a physicist formerly with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and include Ivar Giaever, who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973.
List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

See entire letter here:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3606/Team-of-Scientists-Open-Letter-To-US-Senators-Claim-of-consensus-is-fake

Begging your pardon, but just because 160 scientists (out of a membership of well over 100,000) disagree with AAAS's climate change letter does not make it "invalid" or "fake".
AAAS - What is AAAS?

It's funny you mention the date, but not the year, that that letter was written. It was 2009. Wonder how many of the 160 signatories have woken up to the reality of climate change in the intervening years?

Most recent AAAS publication on climate change:

Scientists Say Wild Weather Is Here to Stay

[15 February 2013]

Wild weather events like Superstorm Sandy are the new normal in North America, as human-driven climate change has made these events more intense and frequent, researchers said at the AAAS Annual Meeting.


I wonder how climate change skeptics can explain away facts such as these-



• In the 1950s, the number of days that set record high temperatures in the U.S. was equal to the number of days that set record low temperatures. By the 2000s, record highs were twice as likely as record low.
• The amount of precipitation falling in the heaviest rain and snow events in the United States has increased by nearly 20% since the 1950s.
• Since the 1970s, the Atlantic Ocean has seen substantial increases in nearly every measure of hurricane activity, from frequency to storm intensity.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

I wonder how climate change skeptics can explain away facts .

Heh...it's called climate change which has gone on for millions of years. Nothing to do with Criminal Gore and his MMGW.

We're still waiting on answers to these valid questions:

10 killer questions for climate extremists | The SPPI Blog

If the industrial revolution had not spewed billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, polluted the waterways and oceans to the point where species are mutating at an unprecedented rate and dying off at an even faster rate, I'd agree with Carlin.

If 90%of forests hadn't been wiped out, so inceasing arid zones and desertification, if fisheries hadn'[t depleted fish stocks to almost non-recoverable levels, I'd go along with Carlin et al also, and ignore human impact on the world's climate, and just put it all down to sun spots and weather patterns born off them.

The problem though is that all the above anthropogenic causes for climate change happen to co-incide with natural cycles such as sun-spot activity and greatly exarcebate their effects, a bit like tipping something finely balanced over the edge.

Never before have polar ice fields melted away at such an alarming rate, there is no evidence of such an event in ice core samples taken at both poles. No increase in CO2 levels to the extent measured now have ever been registered in the polar ice, earth's longest standing climate record "library".

We've had several warm periods, but nothing on the scale that's about to erupt for thousands of years.

A rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and a lowering of CO2 levels in the oceans are symptomatic of an incresing aragonite sea, the condition conducive to an extinction phase.
This aragonite build-up has been going on for millenia, but has been speeding up rapidly in the last two hundred years specifically due to anthropogenic causes, and the speed is increasing.

All the political hoopla is a diversion to stop mass panic as heads of state and those who can afford it prepare for the eventuality, their way.

There are several possible scenarios there, ranging from a hopeful escape into space to an inhabitable planet, a move underground to an another artificial world away fro the surface of earth which will;
a) either become to arid to sustain life as we know it, or;
b) the world will enter a sort of permanent cloud covered state, a perpetual winter.

Of course, sustaining the whole of earth's burgeoning population is going to be impossible, so a reduction in earth's population is going to be necessary, either through genocide or simply birth control.

If anyone has a more cheerful prognosis as to the result of global warming, please don't hesitate to let us know.