Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures show.

Well better stop burning any carbon globally for 46 years then to stop this happening. Better still, get some computer modeller to put real information into their computers and try to defeat the shit in, shit out process they usually construct. This is of course evident by none of their predictions made in the early 1990's.

Oh, by the way, I am planning to go on one of those Antarctic cruises later this year. It's getting a bit tough though due to the massive amounts of growth to the ice down there. Very strange that; all we hear is "the ice caps are melting" but in fact, they are using a plural when really they should use a singular - the Antarctic is growing.... may this is because the climate is getting so hot, that the sea is boiling, pushing cooler water to the bottom (it's not the bottom of course, just how we present it as being unless you want to show me which direction is actually "up" in this universe).



SOURCE

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, by the way, I am planning to go on one of those Antarctic cruises later this year.

Let’s hope they don’t provide an internet connection so we can get a break from your simple mind

Well this is a very Gore type of response. Faced with the irrefutable fact that 50% of the worlds ice caps are not actually melting but instead growing, you instead call me stupid.



Wooo hooo - well done. You are obvious a genius (a gullible one though).

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I can't find a single reference to Al Gore ever having made that 'quote'. That sort of nonsense belongs in Boon Mee's silly little pics thread.

Meanwhile...

Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air
By Phil Plait | Posted Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, at 8:00 AM

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:


The thin red wedge.
Image credit: James Lawrence Powell

Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?

Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Climate Change Denial: Why don

Well you do have to admire how they more than make up for their complete lack of evidence with very high quality spin; they clearly have learned a lot from their campaigns to help the faithful keep their smoking habits unaltered.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's all lies. Lies. LIES. Goddamit. Don't you assholes understand? It's all a conspiracy. That's 13,950 lead authors, 50,000 joint authors, dozens of journals, 1000s of reviewers, millions of readers who are all ALL ALL on the payroll of the Bildeburg-Greenpeace-alien papal masonic lizard-alliance. All those scientists are scheming assholes who are only in it for the money. Do you know how much these so called scientists get for doing this work? Some of them earn double the median wage. It's a fucking gravy-train. Everyone knows that Al Gore faked the data. They're all liars. Except for the ones with no qualifications who never get published but who say what Exxon want them to say - they're telling the truth, of course. Not that I'd know since I've never read a piece of original research in my life and to be honest, I haven't got the first fucking clue what climate change is all about but I do know this: IT'S ALL A LIE.

A little bit like the EVIDENCE that the ANTARCTIC ice cap is *gulps* growing?

But, hang on, Gore said the ice capS were melting?

I guess I might get me some peer reviews on that perhaps; not one of those climate change worshipper ones though because their is definite PROOF that some of them are fudged, made up, twisted, manipulated to help the cause.

I also loved the PEER reviewed articles that dismissed the medieval warming period although they did not actually manage to dismiss the REAL physical evidence of Wine grapes in north of England; the crops and cattle in Green land? The buried bodies at depths well under current permafrost levels. How do they account for all these things? Witchcraft? Voodoo? Did the people who correctly know it is a scam go and plant the evidence? Is Rockefeller get his Exxon and Chevron boys to fake it for him?

400 years of considerably hotter temperatures as proven by plant life and buried bodies of humans and animals, and yet the sea levels stayed the same.

hmmmm - well I wonder. Or, could it be, you, along with the dwindling amount of support for this ludicrous pile of crap refuse to entertain anything aside from Gores lies?

ALL on the payroll of the Bildeburg-Greenpeace-alien papal masonic lizard-alliance.

Good work if you can get it. I can't, not enough lizardness damnit!

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

It's all lies. Lies. LIES. Goddamit. ..... Everyone knows that Al Gore faked the data.... IT'S ALL A LIE.

You are right - he did.

35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore

I love the way you dismiss anyone who brings FACTs to wrestle against your computer models. Of course, you don't bother to read the links put up, or watch the videos because reverand Gore has told you "The SCIENCE HAS BEEN SETTLED".

Climate change happens. We all agree on that. You think it is man made because a load of smug pricks like gore tell you it is to get a whole new industry for him and his mates to make money from it. Other people say is it natural, and in warmer climate we will thrive as will plant life. Imaging being able to plants crops in all of the colder places of the world? the increased rain fall? We will be able to feed the world again assuming monsanto burns in hell before that time.

I know you think it is cool to be a Gore-ite, but it's a bit similar to following the words off Bernie Madoff and thinking his scheme was great. Shit, you are similar to the people who said Ken Lay was a genius.... funny how he was involved heavily with all this with Gore prior to his demise (in terms of company, reputation and health).

Originally Posted by pseudolus

A little bit like the EVIDENCE that the ANTARCTIC ice cap is *gulps* growing?

That evidence comes from the 'Conservative Critic's Blog', itself citing the Climate Science Coalition of America that -- despite it's claim to being a 'non-partisan, independently funded group' -- is linked to/funded by the Heartland Institute: a right-wing think tank with Koch brothers funding (amongst other large multinationals) that has, amongst other such luminary functions, represented Philip Morris "to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms".

It's a curious and notable anomaly that on the one hand those that fall into the denial camp are happy enough to cite and unquestioningly believe such organisations that are backed by massive corporate interests yet on the other are often to be heard to criticise others for their 'group-think' and lack of independent thought from the likes of 'Main Stream Media' and Govt. (i.e. the same sort of interests). Why isn't the same standard applied to both?

Anyway, upshot being, if it's all the same I'll take the settled scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority thanks.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Imaging being able to plants crops in all of the colder places of the world? the increased rain fall? We will be able to feed the world again assuming monsanto burns in hell before that time.

You really have no clue do you?

^ Which part of plant life loving and thriving with increased Co2 do you not understand?

When you suck gore, does he impart to you condescension, smugness and arrogance as well? No need to do anything apart from stick up some computer models and THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED?

The problem is that it is not settled though. It is far from settled. Gore will not enter into a debate about it now, because he loses every time he and the faux science brigade does. So many billions of dollars being pumped into research projects they will never bite the hand that feeds them.



Warmer planet = grow crops in colder places (as happened before) with more rain fall or are you going to deny that warmer climates produce more rain then?

You really have no clue. None at all.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by pseudolus

A little bit like the EVIDENCE that the ANTARCTIC ice cap is *gulps* growing?

That evidence comes from the 'Conservative Critic's Blog', itself citing the Climate Science Coalition of America that -- despite it's claim to being a 'non-partisan, independently funded group' -- is linked to/funded by the Heartland Institute: a right-wing think tank with Koch brothers funding (amongst other large multinationals) that has, amongst other such luminary functions, represented Philip Morris "to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms".

It's a curious and notable anomaly that on the one hand those that fall into the denial camp are happy enough to cite and unquestioningly believe such organisations that are backed by massive corporate interests yet on the other are often to be heard to criticise others for their 'group-think' and lack of independent thought from the likes of 'Main Stream Media' and Govt. (i.e. the same sort of interests). Why isn't the same standard applied to both?

Anyway, upshot being, if it's all the same I'll take the settled scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority thanks.

NASA - Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows

you really have no clue do you.

Your ad hominem attacks and faked Al Gore quotes / pics aren't a very convincing argument.

Oii Stalker boy - put up some facts, or fuck off.

Bloody hell all you ever do is stalk people, some times with your token bit of latin, trying to dismiss what they say. Of course, you never put up facts or actual information. Just bullshit non stop from you.

Trot on stalker - your services are needed in the dog house I guess.

Why don't / can't you leave the silly name-calling out of it, it only reflects poorly on yourself. That chip on your shoulder about Latin is quite bemusing too - you seem to have failed to notice that English borrows heavily from other languages, French for instance. I only ever took one year of Latin and don't speak French... Ce la vie.

As for facts you've apparently missed this:



Like I said, the settled scientific consensus of the overwhelming majority.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

you really have no clue do you.

Best to read and understand your links before you post them, eh.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

This year's winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent (was) about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the last three decades.

Sounds a lot, doesn't it. That must absolutely prove that only a faggy euro-weenie would drive a Prius.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000

Oh dear. And actually, what matters more in the Antarctic is land ice, not sea ice, and estimates of the decline there are 100-300 Gt/year. In the unlikely event that you actually want to know about this, the blog Dosbat carries a lot of material related to changes in sea ice.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oii Stalker boy - put up some facts, or fuck off.

Ha ha! Coming from someone whose idea of refuting an astonishingly solid scientific theory is foot-stamping, hyperventilating and a torrent of badly photoshopped cartoons of a politician, that's more than a little hypocritical. OK, Professor, answer this:

You've already said that the earth is warming. Those who aren't delusional monomaniacs accept that this is because levels of greenhouse gases are rising and, being greenhouse gases, this causes higher temperatures. If you think that the world is warming and this is not due to humans, you have a problem. How do you explain this? As far as I see it, these are your main choices:

1. Despite appearances to the contrary, levels of CO2, N2O, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, and so on aren't rising and the warming is caused by other factors. (Tricky because anyone can check what the levels of these gases are and even the craziest anti-science nutjob doesn't deny that their concentrations are increasing.)

2. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising but, again, despite all scientific knowledge pointing in exactly the opposite direction, these gases don't actually have a greenhouse effect and warming is caused by other factors. (Tricky because if CO2 weren't a greenhouse gas we'd all freeze to death.)

3. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising, greenhouse gases do have a greenhouse effect but this effect is being suppressed by some mysterious cause and the warming is being caused by a second, unknown factor. (Tricky because I don't know of anything that fits the bill - particulate pollution has a negative forcing and is taking about half a degree of warming off at the moment but that's retarding, not stopping warming and in any case, it doesn't mean that we're not causing warming - it means that the waste products of industrial civilization are both causing warming and reducing the severity of that warming, which is not what you seem to be claiming.)

So, what's going on?

If it were the industrial output of CO2 causing climate change to raise temperatures worldwide then it has occurred over a period of only 150 years.
If such a critical change could take place over such a short period of time compared to the time the world has been its current form, i.e. millions of years then I would suggest one's chips are already fried.
Who cares? Wittering on about salvation is pointless and we should just accept that the world as we know it is ending in 100 years.

Well, only if one actually believed the climate changers. What is happening is quite natural and nothing will alter it. Hug a tree Dan and read some more data if it makes you feel better. If you are right then we're kippered, if you're wrong then we're still fucked but we will have spent an awful lot of money on spurious taxes for bugger all.

warming is it ? I wish it would hurry up
I cannot see any downside to it even if it is ,
CO2 is plant food the more the better , that's why busy roads always have lovely lush green verges .
what else ? ice caps melt - sea level rise ?
bring it on, it will give the coral reefs more room to grow
ice cap water is fresh, will give the dirty seas a good wash

Main problem is overpopulation and pollution from the 3rd world.
If global warming can somehow wipe out loads of those over-breeders then all well and good.

There is no down side to a nice warm earth !

Climate change is a scam by Government to tax the poor. If the Western Governments where that concerned about the real threat of carbon immisions then,STOP military flights over Afghanistan,Stop warships burning up fuel to drive propellers. Tanks,whats the MPG? Airforce 1 U.S.A how much is the carbon footprint.
Governments,practise what you preach. Cnrts

^^ Would you vote for Al Gore when he runs for President?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Imaging being able to plants crops in all of the colder places of the world? the increased rain fall? We will be able to feed the world again assuming monsanto burns in hell before that time.

You really have no clue do you?

I guess the same could be said to a die hard Christian, Muslim or Buddhist for that matter. I guess global warming, erm, climate change fills a missing hole for some!

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

I guess the same could be said to a die hard Christian, Muslim or Buddhist for that matter. I guess global warming, erm, climate change fills a missing hole for some!

Considering that it's based on the consensus of the scientific community (cf. made up Al Gore 'quotes') that's a really, really bad analogy.