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: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#27943 May 10, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You can't help tina[always in small letters], who knows nothing, with your bs.
Read to learn from:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/09/4...
Your link, actually a SkepticalScience article lists the following as a rebuttal to Lindzen:
CO2-equivalent has not increased by 100%, but rather by about 76% above pre-industrial levels.

[H]uman aerosol emissions, which have a cooling effect.

3°C is the equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount the planet will eventually warm once it reaches a new energy balance. The planet currently has an energy imbalance (mostly stored as heat in the oceans), so there is still more warming “in the pipeline”
I get 40% since pre-industrial levels and I come up with a 1.5°C rise for a 3.2°C climate sensitivity for CO2 and the 0.7°C over the last 160 years is what has happened. Did Lindzen claim CO2 is up 100 percent? Why would he do that? Why does Nuccitelli come up with 76 percent?

Oh yes the aerosol argument. Nuccitelli forgot to make the volcano argument for why temperatures went up in the 1920s and all the other dog ate my homework bullshit scenarios dreamed up to support his line of bullshit.

And finally the pipeline argument. Temperatures go up and down daily and seasonally but superimposed on this is some sort of a lag do to the claimed warming of the oceans. You know those oceans that the ARGO floats said is cooling until Dr. Josh Willis adjusted the data and installed a computer model and now ARGO shows warming. And as I've pointed out repeatedly, the IPCC tells us in Chapter five of their AR4 report that the ocean warmed to a depth of 700 meters by 0.10°C since the 1960s. And I've further pointed out that the ocean isn't going to warm anything more than that 0.1°C. I don't know how much warming Dr. Willis fudge factored into the ARGO system but it can't be more than a fraction of a degree and you guys need more than that to get your scare story to work.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#27944 May 10, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're too stupid to differentiate between weather and climate.
When they're talking about records being broken that started in 1895, they're not talking about weather, idiot.
<sigh>

117 years over 4.5 billion = 0.0000026%

Run along.... you waste bandwidth.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#27945 May 10, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We are returning in a few decades what took millennia after mellenia to lay down. What will be the result? Never has this much CO2 been released is such a short period.
Are you sure? After all, there are not exactly records of CO2 level dating back more than a few centuries. Which means that there are two eon's where no one was recording CO2 levels. When you start looking at what they do have then you would of noticed that CO2 levels only increase after the temperatures increase. Which is an indicator of a effect and not a cause. There are natural events such as volcanic eruptions that release CO2 in large quanities. Such as with Lake Nyos and other lakes on top of magma chambers. They have release CO2 at levels that are deadly.

What your who claim revolves around is that man must be the cause. That is the only way your claims work. If man is not causing it by using CO2 then the entire idea falls apart.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/01volcan...
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27946 May 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure? After all, there are not exactly records of CO2 level dating back more than a few centuries. Which means that there are two eon's where no one was recording CO2 levels. When you start looking at what they do have then you would of noticed that CO2 levels only increase after the temperatures increase. Which is an indicator of a effect and not a cause. There are natural events such as volcanic eruptions that release CO2 in large quanities. Such as with Lake Nyos and other lakes on top of magma chambers. They have release CO2 at levels that are deadly.
What your who claim revolves around is that man must be the cause. That is the only way your claims work. If man is not causing it by using CO2 then the entire idea falls apart.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/01volcan...
There is no indication by any proxies that CO2 has been released in the past as rapidly as today. Also I must remind your feeble mind that there has been a new study that shows CO2 leading warming in the past. But of course you don't remember anything that disputes what you yap.

“CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun said,“and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond.”

“While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming,” Shakun added.

Source: redOrbit ( http://s.tt/18RyW )

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/a...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#27947 May 10, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no indication by any proxies that CO2 has been released in the past as rapidly as today. Also I must remind your feeble mind that there has been a new study that shows CO2 leading warming in the past. But of course you don't remember anything that disputes what you yap.
“CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age,” Shakun said,“and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond.”
“While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming,” Shakun added.
Source: redOrbit ( http://s.tt/18RyW )
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/a...
There has been no indication that it hasn't happened either. That is the point that we really do not know what happened in the past. Hence the reason why so many scientist are still researching it.

Also notice that you talking about how the last two hundred years. Funny thing is that is how long man has been tracking CO2 levels directly. Before that it was only proxies. As for the claim that the earth is just starting to respond.

I also noticed that your study only covered from the end of the last ice age to now and didn't compare it to the last interglacial period. I wonder if that was because if they had then the rapid rise you are blaming on man would be mirrored in that period as well.
IamDigitap

Yuba City, CA

#27948 May 10, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no indication by any proxies that CO2 has been released in the past as rapidly as today.
THERE IS NO INDICATION

ANYONE AT THE HICK WEBSITES YEW VISIT

KNOWS

THIM MAGICAL T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.Z. AINT REEL PROXIES.

AINT REEL HEET SINTSURS

AINT REEL ATMUSFERIC KIMUHSTRY ANALIKUL THINGLIES.

There's NO INDICATION

ANYONE at ANY WEBSITE YOUR CHURCH RUNS,

KNOWS THIM CLIM-IT MAYUTHs

wuz JUS SKRIBBLS.

You're an IGNORANT HICK who thawt UHPAKUHLIPS

WUZ UP ON YUHs so YEW LOST YER MIND

and SINT MONIE to AL GOR.

CAWS HE'S thuh PRESuhDINT uv thuH WERLD to yew.

Evun if HE DON'T NO THIM

MAGICAL MYSTERIES
aint REEL.

You insipid libtard loser, how many of you people will die from overdoses
venereal disease
accident
self-induced crime
before Darwin's Dog gets tired of eating your DEAD?

L.E.G.I.O.N.

“Iblis-ak-bar & mo his prophet”

Since: Mar 07

Mt Clemens, MI

#27949 May 10, 2012
Holy Ex-Chel... Global Warning has just been proven!!.. In areas around giant windmills a vortex is created that pulls warmer air, destroying the micro-ecology....
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#27950 May 10, 2012
IamDigitap wrote:
<quoted text>
THERE IS NO INDICATION
ANYONE AT THE HICK WEBSITES YEW VISIT
KNOWS
THIM MAGICAL T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.Z. AINT REEL PROXIES.
AINT REEL HEET SINTSURS
AINT REEL ATMUSFERIC KIMUHSTRY ANALIKUL THINGLIES.
There's NO INDICATION
ANYONE at ANY WEBSITE YOUR CHURCH RUNS,
KNOWS THIM CLIM-IT MAYUTHs
wuz JUS SKRIBBLS.
You're an IGNORANT HICK who thawt UHPAKUHLIPS
WUZ UP ON YUHs so YEW LOST YER MIND
and SINT MONIE to AL GOR.
CAWS HE'S thuh PRESuhDINT uv thuH WERLD to yew.
Evun if HE DON'T NO THIM
MAGICAL MYSTERIES
aint REEL.
You insipid libtard loser, how many of you people will die from overdoses
venereal disease
accident
self-induced crime
before Darwin's Dog gets tired of eating your DEAD?
L.E.G.I.O.N.
I thought you were dickcheney for a while.

Now you call yourself legion, like you're possessed.

I'm just gonna call you dumphuc.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27951 May 10, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no indication that it hasn't happened either. That is the point that we really do not know what happened in the past. Hence the reason why so many scientist are still researching it.
Also notice that you talking about how the last two hundred years. Funny thing is that is how long man has been tracking CO2 levels directly. Before that it was only proxies. As for the claim that the earth is just starting to respond.
I also noticed that your study only covered from the end of the last ice age to now and didn't compare it to the last interglacial period. I wonder if that was because if they had then the rapid rise you are blaming on man would be mirrored in that period as well.
So, your reasoning is that since we really don't know what happened in the past or not, that means it can't be what is happening today.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#27952 May 11, 2012
So, Bozo, have you decided yet whether it's "millennia" or "mellenia?"
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27953 May 11, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
So, Bozo, have you decided yet whether it's "millennia" or "mellenia?"
Is that a hypothetical question, pops?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#27954 May 11, 2012
I'm wondering who still takes global warming seriously, if anybody?
It's obvious that Bozo doesn't.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#27955 May 11, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
I'm wondering who still takes global warming seriously, if anybody?
It's obvious that Bozo doesn't.
Who takes Bozo seriously is a better question. Then again, he isn't as bad as some.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#27956 May 11, 2012
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Who takes Bozo seriously is a better question. Then again, he isn't as bad as some.
Hmmm.... I'd say he takes himself quite seriously.

As for anyone else?

Maybe SpaceBlues, but that says little.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27957 May 11, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
I'm wondering who still takes global warming seriously, if anybody?
It's obvious that Bozo doesn't.
Don't put words in my mouth, pops! I take global warming quite seriously.
SpaceBlues

United States

#27958 May 11, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm.... I'd say he takes himself quite seriously.
As for anyone else?
Maybe SpaceBlues, but that says little.
booo

You have nothing to say other than gossip with tina[always in small letters].

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#27959 May 11, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm.... I'd say he takes himself quite seriously.
As for anyone else?
Maybe SpaceBlues, but that says little.
Then Spaceblues speaks much but says little.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27960 May 11, 2012
Who takes global warming seriously? You might be in for a surprise!

72% of Americans think that global warming should be a very high priority for Congress and the President.
92% of Americans think that developing clean energy should be a very high priority for Congress and the President.
83 percent of Americans think that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (58%) or has no effect on economic growth or jobs (25%).
70 percent of Americans say that corporations and industry should be doing more to address global warming, which is back up to levels last seen in the fall of 2008
67 percent of Americans also say that citizens themselves should be doing more to address the issue.
58 percent of Americans say that Congress should be doing more to address global warming. The proportion that say Congress should be doing “much more” has increased four percentage points since May 2011 (up to 23%).
More than two-thirds of Americans (68%) say the U.S. should make either a large-scale or medium-scale effort to reduce global warming, even if this has large or moderate economic costs.
A large majority of Americans (79%) supports funding more research into renewable energy sources. Among registered voters, 91 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Republicans support this policy.
75 percent support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Among registered voters, 84 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 67 percent of Republicans support this policy.
61 percent of Americans support holding the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil and natural gas) responsible for “all the hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain our access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.” Among registered voters, 68 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans support this policy.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Pol...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#27961 May 11, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Who takes global warming seriously? You might be in for a surprise!
72% of Americans think that global warming should be a very high priority for Congress and the President.
92% of Americans think that developing clean energy should be a very high priority for Congress and the President.
83 percent of Americans think that protecting the environment either improves economic growth and provides new jobs (58%) or has no effect on economic growth or jobs (25%).
70 percent of Americans say that corporations and industry should be doing more to address global warming, which is back up to levels last seen in the fall of 2008
67 percent of Americans also say that citizens themselves should be doing more to address the issue.
58 percent of Americans say that Congress should be doing more to address global warming. The proportion that say Congress should be doing “much more” has increased four percentage points since May 2011 (up to 23%).
More than two-thirds of Americans (68%) say the U.S. should make either a large-scale or medium-scale effort to reduce global warming, even if this has large or moderate economic costs.
A large majority of Americans (79%) supports funding more research into renewable energy sources. Among registered voters, 91 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents, and 74 percent of Republicans support this policy.
75 percent support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Among registered voters, 84 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 67 percent of Republicans support this policy.
61 percent of Americans support holding the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil and natural gas) responsible for “all the hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain our access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.” Among registered voters, 68 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Independents, and 54 percent of Republicans support this policy.
http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Pol...
These results come from nationally representative surveys of American adults, aged 18 and older.
The samples were weighted to correspond with US Census Bureau parameters for the United States.
The surveys were designed by Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and Edward Maibach and
Connie Roser- Renouf of George Mason University and conducted by Knowledge Networks, using
an online research panel of American adults.

• March 2012: Fielded March 12 through March 30, 2012 with 1,008 American adults. The
margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• November 2011: Fielded October 20 through November 16 with 1,000 American adults.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• May 2011: Fielded April 23 through May 12 with 1,010 American adults. The margin of
sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• June 2010: Fielded May 14 through June 1 with 1,024 American adul ts. The margin of
sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• January 2010: Fielded December 24, 2009 through January 3, 2010 with 1,001 American
adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• November 2008: Fielded October 7 through November 12 with 2,164 American adults.
Data was collected in two waves: wave 1 from October 7 through October 20 and wave 2
from October 24 through November 12. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2
percent, with 95 percent confidence.

Hmmm.... compiling results all the way back to 2008. When was climategate? 2009, but no totals from 2009.

How curious.

And let's not forget the self-serving nature of a report touting the public's opinion from an organization that benefits from it's results.

Move along... nothing to see here.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#27962 May 11, 2012
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
These results come from nationally representative surveys of American adults, aged 18 and older.
The samples were weighted to correspond with US Census Bureau parameters for the United States.
The surveys were designed by Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and Edward Maibach and
Connie Roser- Renouf of George Mason University and conducted by Knowledge Networks, using
an online research panel of American adults.
• March 2012: Fielded March 12 through March 30, 2012 with 1,008 American adults. The
margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• November 2011: Fielded October 20 through November 16 with 1,000 American adults.
The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• May 2011: Fielded April 23 through May 12 with 1,010 American adults. The margin of
sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• June 2010: Fielded May 14 through June 1 with 1,024 American adul ts. The margin of
sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• January 2010: Fielded December 24, 2009 through January 3, 2010 with 1,001 American
adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percent, with 95 percent confidence.
• November 2008: Fielded October 7 through November 12 with 2,164 American adults.
Data was collected in two waves: wave 1 from October 7 through October 20 and wave 2
from October 24 through November 12. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2
percent, with 95 percent confidence.
Hmmm.... compiling results all the way back to 2008. When was climategate? 2009, but no totals from 2009.
How curious.
And let's not forget the self-serving nature of a report touting the public's opinion from an organization that benefits from it's results.
Move along... nothing to see here.
Climate gate was just a deniers wet dream. But, of course Heartland propaganda is kosher. LOL

Pretty impressive level of confidence!

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.

Shiprock Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-Bush bus rolls into Farmington; Republican... (Aug '08) 11 hr XandO 66
Farmington commission: Restaurant did not discr... (Sep '10) Dec 23 AnnsResturantSucks 193
Allen Theaters drops screenings of 'The Intervi... Dec 23 MuricanHero 2
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Dec 22 Servers 286
FPD Lt popped for unlawful hunting' Dec 20 ODUSMC 4
Random Acts of Kindness (Jun '09) Dec 17 JUST_NOBODY 4,929
Trainers aim to prevent spring sports injuries (Mar '11) Dec 15 kurtcooksalot16 4
Shiprock Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Shiprock People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Shiprock News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Shiprock

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:06 pm PST

Bleacher Report12:06PM
Sanders (Hip) Questionable to Play vs. OAK
NBC Sports12:12 PM
Cards could get Warner, but cutting him
NBC Sports12:44 PM
Arizona's Lindley back at starter, Stanton has infection - NBC Sports
ESPN 3:27 PM
Harbaugh stays tight-lipped on 49ers future
Bleacher Report11:44 PM
Denver Broncos: Why the Run Defense Isn't a Concern