Who still takes global warming seriously?

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov. Full Story

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31480 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually those laws that you think they are against would make them more profitable. After all, what is going to replace oil. Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and cannot supply the energy needed to run the modern world. Lets not forget the host of chemicals produced from oil. Some of which there are no subsititues. When pointing out that eight of the twelve largest companies are oil companies you failed to point out why they are the largest.
As for the magazines mention, who do you think the editors are, not scientist but journalism majors. They all need to sell subscription and who better to part from their money than the foolish. After all, others would realize that they could find the same information for free online.
Something else people like you seem to deny is that climate change has been happening as long as the earth has had a climate. It has been warmer and cooler in the past. The planet has had multiple ice ages and the earth had periods in between when it warmed. Periods when man or even mammels did not exist. How many of those same magazine that were around in the seventies were publishing articles about an approaching ice age or Mathus's Population Bomb theory. They publish what people are interested in enough to purchase a magazine. The same reason why Playboy and Penthouse publishes air brushed pictures of women for with the same ethics.
And NASA has made more than a few mistakes and those mistakes had nothing to do with RW spin. In some cases it was nothing more than NASA playing the political game to procure a larger slice of the pie. With looming cuts and a nasty budget battle in the future they are not the only government agency looking to stave off budget cuts.
Obviously oil is valuable even if you exclude burning it for energy. This despite the fact that government policy, by NOT having a carbon tax, grossly & horrendously distorts the market.

Far too many of us suffer from the psychotic delusion that it is "free" to dump carbon into the atmosphere. It is NOT free. Until that cost is included in the price of oil & other fossil fuels, the market can NEVER be free, or reflect reality.

If you think science journals are published by journalists, you don't understand science. Science must produce results that can be verified by others. A scientist simply CAN'T lie or distort (as a rule), because if other scientists can't reproduce the same results, then any subterfuge or deception will be discovered. If a scientist is found to have been deliberately deceptive, that scientist's academic career is generally over. So scientists don't lie, & the ONLY thing they care about is being right. When they're pvoven to be right (e.g. before or after they die) doesn't matter nearly as much.

If general science journals just wanted to sell copy, they could hype plenty of other stories, from the Yellowstone supervolcano to the nonsense about cycle 25 that you hear from deniers. If they hype AGW/CC theory, it's because it's proven fact.

Yes, we've had climate change for billions of years. It's been warmer & colder than it is now. That is 100.0000000000% irrelevant to the danger now. The ONLY reason it matters is that these variations have helped us understand the influences on climate.

Human civilization was developed with HOLOCENE climate & with HOLOCENE sea levels. Sure, the dinosaurs did fine when it was a lot warmer, but sea level was ~70 meters higher.

Our agriculture would collapse during dinosaurian conditions. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure within a few meters of sea level. Of COURSE we could tolerate higher temps, but it would be unimaginably expensive & deadly to change.

Again, if you think NASA has "made mistakes," post the link. If it's the nonsense you posted before about Roy Spencer, it means nothing.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31481 Feb 12, 2013
Scientist correct errors to discover their corrections are in error. Ever wonder why they use terms as prediction,my opinion, could be, should be,as a rule and forecast? Scienceis fact not fiction as mentioned above.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31482 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof, but it is ideology.
And when you only put out right wing anti-science websites, you scream foul at anyone calling them what they are.
HA HA HA
<quoted text>
There are conservatives who take the scientific view too. They'd take NASA's website seriously, dear.
And I have already demonstrated ALL the world renown science organizations like NASA take the same position they do in warming about the dangers of man made global warming.
<quoted text>
Liar! You found me an article about Roy Spencer who worked for NASA many years ago. I proved the NASA climatologists had also debunked the paper you put out, and gave you a citation by BBC showing his editor (of a satellite magazine) was so upset by his flawed analysis, that he resigned his position to show the extent of his humiliation.)
THAT doesn't come anywhere near being a "official NASA website."
<quoted text>
wow== talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
You're already made so many EGREGIOUS MONSTROUS MISTAKES here, most people would hide their face in shame, dear.
"You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain why NASA's official climatology website is not really science or proof"

That's how she got the nickname of "Twisty".
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31483 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, but plants seem to love the heat in a hot house. And try increasing the CO2 in that hot house for your tomato's. You be surprised at the increase in quanity and quality. Not to mention the warmth, tomatos seem to really not like the cold.
Sorry, Valley Girl, wrong again!

You only wish it were that simple.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31484 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Your last statement exemplifies all of your scientific science fiction.
All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.

Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31485 Feb 12, 2013
Washington, DC—A team of scientists, led by researchers at Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology, has determined that the recent widespread die-off of Colorado trembling aspen trees is a direct result of decreased precipitation exacerbated by high summer temperatures. The die-off, triggered by the drought from 2000-2003, is estimated to have affected up to 17% of Colorado aspen forests. In 2002, the drought subjected the trees to the most extreme growing season water stress of the past century.

While often not killing the trees directly, the drought damaged the ability of the trees to provide water to their leaves, leading to a decline in growth and increased mortality that has continued for a decade after the drought. The research is published on-line in Global Change Biology. Another related study appeared earlier this year in the same journal.

Until recently, there has been little attention paid to what drought characteristics (seasonal differences, severity, or durations) actually cause trees to die. Scientists additionally have lacked a sufficient understanding of the processes that lead to die-offs, which inhibits the ability to predict how climate change can affect different ecosystems.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Watering all the trees in Colorado is nothing like watering tomatoes.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31486 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
Scientist correct errors to discover their corrections are in error. Ever wonder why they use terms as prediction,my opinion, could be, should be,as a rule and forecast? Scienceis fact not fiction as mentioned above.
Yes, scientists are human & can make mistakes. But the truth always, ALWAYS comes out. Always. Sometimes it takes months, years, decades or even centuries, but the truth comes out.

It appears you don't understand science. It makes progress over time as more things are learned. Once something is known, it's known, even though more questions can always be asked.

Newtonian physics are completely contained as a special case within Einsteinian physics. However, the CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE. Einsteinian physics cannot be described by Newtonian physics.

It's possible that one of the versions of supersymmetric string theory will prove to be true, & both Einsteinian physics & quantum mechanics, the physics of the very large & very small, will be special cases of that larger string theory.

So scientists do NOT go willy-nilly back & forth from one position to another; they are constantly making progress, however haltingly, however inconsistently.

When it comes to AGW/CC, since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995, the IPCC mid-range predictions have been very close to what's actually happened with temperatures. The predictions of doubters like Lindzen, however, have been WAY off.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31488 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, scientists are human & can make mistakes. But the truth always, ALWAYS comes out. Always. Sometimes it takes months, years, decades or even centuries, but the truth comes out.
It appears you don't understand science. It makes progress over time as more things are learned. Once something is known, it's known, even though more questions can always be asked.
Newtonian physics are completely contained as a special case within Einsteinian physics. However, the CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE. Einsteinian physics cannot be described by Newtonian physics.
It's possible that one of the versions of supersymmetric string theory will prove to be true, & both Einsteinian physics & quantum mechanics, the physics of the very large & very small, will be special cases of that larger string theory.
So scientists do NOT go willy-nilly back & forth from one position to another; they are constantly making progress, however haltingly, however inconsistently.
When it comes to AGW/CC, since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995, the IPCC mid-range predictions have been very close to what's actually happened with temperatures. The predictions of doubters like Lindzen, however, have been WAY off.
So in essence until science makes correction to their errors and the end results would be fact it is scienctific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31490 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So in essence until science makes correction to their errors and the end results would be fact it is scienctific science fiction.
No, that is absolutely incorrect, Penny. Science DOES make progress.

But whatever. If it challenges you, we know you won't bother.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31491 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is absolutely incorrect, Penny. Science DOES make progress.
But whatever. If it challenges you, we know you won't bother.
They make progress with errors, so HOMO you are the one that is factually incorrect. It appears that you are the one that is challenged and never bothers. Cut and paste scientific science fiction proves nothing.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#31492 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
...
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse....
You can experimentally test conditions inside a commercial greenhouse but nobody has ever shown a real world test of climate change mitigation. You are promoting an untested prototype and fantasize it can do more good than harm.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
CO2 is a trace gas; I'm not concerned. CO2 is required for life, why call it an 'industrial gas'? It used to be in the atmosphere, then it got fossilized; oil, coal and gas production shows the beauty of resurrection. When you see a factory, you might think it stinks but I think jobs.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
....
++++++++++
So cut the right wing crap, ok?
I don't want my government to mitigate climate change, politicians shouldn't promise to make climate better or heal the planet. It offends me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31493 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>They make progress with errors, so HOMO you are the one that is factually incorrect. It appears that you are the one that is challenged and never bothers. Cut and paste scientific science fiction proves nothing.
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.

I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...

When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?

They have more graphs, but they don't change things:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...

There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.

So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31494 Feb 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You can experimentally test conditions inside a commercial greenhouse but nobody has ever shown a real world test of climate change mitigation. You are promoting an untested prototype and fantasize it can do more good than harm.
.
<quoted text>CO2 is a trace gas; I'm not concerned. CO2 is required for life, why call it an 'industrial gas'? It used to be in the atmosphere, then it got fossilized; oil, coal and gas production shows the beauty of resurrection. When you see a factory, you might think it stinks but I think jobs.
.
<quoted text>I don't want my government to mitigate climate change, politicians shouldn't promise to make climate better or heal the planet. It offends me.
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.

This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.

In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.

And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!

A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.

So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31495 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.
I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...
When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?
They have more graphs, but they don't change things:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.
So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.
Erratum: 1st link above doesn't work; it's to the upper left chart in the 2nd link.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31496 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.
This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.
In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.
And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!
A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.
So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.
Yes, yes, and yes.

Brian doesn't understand the concept of excess. We need Vitamins A, E, and K, they are good for you and necessary for good health, but you can OD on them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31497 Feb 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes, and yes.
Brian doesn't understand the concept of excess. We need Vitamins A, E, and K, they are good for you and necessary for good health, but you can OD on them.
Vitamin D also.

Lots of things are essential for life in "Goldilocks" (just right) amounts. Even oxygen is toxic & will wipe out your lungs if you breathe 100% for a few days. You can die of water intoxication even WITHOUT drowning. Minerals (salts) like sodium & potassium, & countless other things, behave the same way: essential for life in just right amounts, lethal in excess.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31498 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.
I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...
When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?
They have more graphs, but they don't change things:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.
So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.
All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31499 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.

BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31500 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.
BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
Sorry I don't have the time like you may have to learn scientific scienc fiction. Again thanks for the link will study if it's real science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#31501 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.
This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.
In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.
And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!
A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.
So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.
How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.

Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.

Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.

Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Planes will drop herbicide on sagebrush in San... Thu lies 2
Farmington Police Department expects 5-year hig... Oct 22 XandO 4
Kirtland Incorporation - Something Smells and i... Oct 21 Whammer Jammer 2
Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Oct 18 justice is just a... 6,084
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Oct 18 XandO 214
FPD Bored? Oct 15 MCMN 24
Jordan Ray Thomas Miller (Nov '08) Oct 13 Ashley Schultz 9
Farmington Dating
Find my Match

Farmington Jobs

Farmington People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Farmington News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Farmington

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]