Why skeptics must heed climate change

[Brian_G]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

They are REPORTED as ppmv, but are not MEASURED as volume of different gasses....

Let's see, CO2 is reported by parts per million by volume but not measured as parts per million by volume? Care to explain that little gem?

I think you the stupidest post award, I have to hand it to you.

[Chimney]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
You should think. In the end the Gulf war was the result of Carter's actions. The middle east countries had every reason to believe that the US would not react to Iraq's invasion of Kuwaitt dispite the threaty we had with them. So with Carter we ended up with inflation and a war that Bush senior had to take car of. The amazing thing about Carter was that he managed to make such a mess that it took over twelve years to put thing back where they were.
He was a moron, history has already judged his presidency and it was all bad.
You should go ahead and drink the kool aid. It could only improve the gene pool.

Carter handed Iran to the nutters on a plate. And look where thats taken things in the last 30 years.

[Chimney]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>The quote could not be more directly or clearly applicable. The only reason you don't get it is cause you refuse to. Deliberate blindness

Not at all. The quote is directly applicable only if the side effects of the productive activity are harmless. If the side effects can produce harm then AR would be the first to support regulation in the name of property rights.

[Chimney]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>That's a good idea, why don't you discuss it with these PhDs:
Timothy F. Ball
Robert M. Carter
Michael Chrichton
....
Richard Lindzen
Craig D. Idso
Sherwood Idso
Kiminori Itoh
Patrick Michaels

Climate skeptics I take it. Which reminds me that nobody on this thread, either AGW believer or skeptic, is really qualified to answer the question of its validity. What do we do? Just chuck one authority at another?

I am more interested in the fact that even if its real, its still no excuse for Copenhagen-like arrangements, large scale phony wealth transfers, pollution policies that selectively penalise the West, etc.

Deniers probably agree with this statement, but shoot themselves in the foot if they pin their arguments on skepticism alone.

[Eighthman]

Not since Cleon have people endured the rantings of a guy like Obama.

A demagogue is "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

If the shoe fits......

[CTYankee]

If we allow the government to pay for abortions maybe we would not have so many false-science believing, tree-hunging, panty wastes on the earth poluting.You know the ones who are trying to push their religion("global warming" oh yah, it's now "climate change" because the earth has been cooling since 1998) on normal Americans. Too bad a Jim Jones type couldn't start up a climate change cult and take these whackos some where to drink some Kool-Aid. One day they will wake up and find the science they trusted has failed them, just like Darwin's thoery of evolution has.

[Chimney]

CTYankee wrote:

.... One day they will wake up and find the science they trusted has failed them, just like Darwin's thoery of evolution has.

Quick Poll:

How many climate skeptics here are also evolution skeptics?

[Bob Burns]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. The quote is directly applicable only if the side effects of the productive activity are harmless. If the side effects can produce harm then AR would be the first to support regulation in the name of property rights.

You are one twisted dude. Quoting a book on freedom to justify socialist slavery. AR would crucify you

[Bob Burns]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Quick Poll:
How many climate skeptics here are also evolution skeptics?

How many alarmists are obaminites?

[Chimney]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>You are one twisted dude. Quoting a book on freedom to justify socialist slavery. AR would crucify you

I didn't quote AR.

I don't believe in socialism.

Now before you get all choked up with all that emotion blanking out your brain and start talking crucifixion and slavery etc, perhaps you should look at what I have actually said.

[Chimney]

For example, Bob Burns

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>

...I am more interested in the fact that even if its real (AGW), its still no excuse for Copenhagen-like arrangements, large scale phony wealth transfers, pollution policies that selectively penalise the West, etc.
...

[Chimney]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>The quote could not be more directly or clearly applicable. The only reason you don't get it is cause you refuse to. Deliberate blindness

The reason it is not as simple as you make out is that property rights were a cornerstone of AR's philosophy.

What would AR say if your factory effluent polluted my farmland and prevented me from growing crops on it? What if my factory effluent potentially degraded everybody else's property?

That is the comparable example here.

[tina anne]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, they are two separate topics. AGW and the climate change that may result. But of course, you cannot understand either one and get them confused...

Actualy AGW was a subset of climate change which has been hotly debated and overhyped for over a century. AGW start disappearing from view when it was proven wrong. Hence the change to climate change and using history as a guide your start hearing more about global cooling as time goes on for a decade or two until that is all you seem to hear until it is dropped in favor of climate change again at which point the cycle starts again and the new AGW craze starts.

[tina anne]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
"They" was the Bush Administration who instructed the alteration to the new terminology because "climate change" sounded less threatening than "global warming". Another Karl Rove special, most likely.

You mean that Bush had so much control that he killed AGW just like that. Sorry I like Bush but I doubt he had that much pull.

[Bob Burns]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason it is not as simple as you make out is that property rights were a cornerstone of AR's philosophy.
What would AR say if your factory effluent polluted my farmland and prevented me from growing crops on it? What if my factory effluent potentially degraded everybody else's property?
That is the comparable example here.

CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant. It makes plants bigger and stronger, thus greening the planet. Am I against real actual toxic pollutants? Yes. This whole AGW thing is a shameless scam, based of the ignorance of sheeple, designed to promote poisonous socialism

[I Am DigitaP]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Climate skeptics I take it. Which reminds me that nobody on this thread, either AGW believer or skeptic, is really qualified to answer the question of its validity. What do we do? Just chuck one authority at another?
I am more interested in the fact that even if its real, its still no excuse for Copenhagen-like arrangements, large scale phony wealth transfers, pollution policies that selectively penalise the West, etc.
Deniers probably agree with this statement, but shoot themselves in the foot if they pin their arguments on skepticism alone.

"Heat" Hansen wants you to believe that NASA

with HIM NOW LEADING THE SEARCH

having for THIRTY YEARS

having deployed an ever increasingly sensitive, redundant overlapping array of satellites, aviation, and ground-based instruments

STILL can not measure a HEATER.

Knowing
Where the HEATER is
When the HEATER is operating
How much HEAT
What wavelength the HEAT has.

The man who claims to know more about this than anybody

RUNNING NASA's search,

can't find a HEATER he SWEARS is there.

NASA can't find a heater.

If you believe that, you're a gullible hick.

There's no room for "THEY aren't testing right."
HE'S the one testing for it.

There's no room for "THEY don't have proper instruments."
It's NASA.
And this is a HEATER.
So big it heats the earth.

There's no room for "It's too complicated."
HE took the job and helped design the tests and equipment.

There's no room for "That instrument is broken,"
There's laser-ranged microwave satellite
Infrared tantalum optical satellite cameras
Radiosondes
Aviation thermal sensors
Infra-red FILM: a different technology than the others
Ground based electronic infrared devices.

Heat Hansen himself proclaims their instruments, to be working just fine.

So there's two choices: Either he's incompetent in deploying test instrumentation to the point he stopped whole FIELDS of engineering designing and deploying their instrumentation properly

Or he's lying.

There is no middle of the road.

He can either prove it's there, or he's lying.

OR, there's of course the third option.

M.a.g.i.c.a.l. L.e.n.s. from another dimension punishing mankind for it's sins.

Please comment on your church's inability to find a giant HEATER in the sky.

[I Am DigitaP]

So what do you think, Chimney?

Is Jim Hansen a pathological liar who burst out "when are we going to lock up the people that disagree with me for crimes against humanity?"

Or is he such an utter incompetent he can't find the largest heater on earth,

using N.A.S.A.
knowing WHERE the heater is
knowing WHEN the heater is active
knowing WHAT form (heat) to look for
knowing HOW MUCH heat to look for
knowing WHAT WAVELENGTH that heat is

Is that incompetence?
Looks staggering to me. And it's HANSEN'S LEADERSHIP of the SEARCH so there's no blaming 'them.'

There's no "we don't have enough microwave pulse or electronic infrared satellites" or "we can't buy a decent thermometer"

This is NASA

looking for a heater. A giant heater.
For THIRTY years.

So is Hansen lying when the instruments show it's not there?

Or is the Magic HEATER in the sky too magic for NASA to measure with the most redundant and sophisticated thermal arrays ever deployed?

[Chimney]

Bob Burns wrote:

<quoted text>CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant. It makes plants bigger and stronger, thus greening the planet. Am I against real actual toxic pollutants? Yes. This whole AGW thing is a shameless scam, based of the ignorance of sheeple, designed to promote poisonous socialism

Well like it or not, BB, thats the whole debate. Yes, higher CO2 concentrations may make plants grow, but they also might heat the planet up and put a lot of land underwater, create a lot of deserts, and cause more hurricanes etc.

And, if they do, then going back to the original point, there is an issue of property and property damage.

What p&$$ing me off is that on both sides are people who are religiously believing what they WANT to believe.

As an AR supporter and free market capitalist you don't WANT to believe that CO2 might have deleterious effects.

On the other side are a bunch of asses that will delight in the idea that AGW will discredit capitalism and give them an excuse for control.

The THIRD option is that CO2 might have some deleterious effects but we stick to our guns in defending free market capitalism as the only way to solve the issue effectively. THAT is the path that AR would endorse.

[Chimney]

I Am DigitaP wrote:

So what do you think, Chimney?
Is Jim Hansen a pathological liar who burst out "when are we going to lock up the people that disagree with me for crimes against humanity?"
Or is he such an utter incompetent he can't find the largest heater on earth,
using N.A.S.A.
knowing WHERE the heater is
knowing WHEN the heater is active
knowing WHAT form (heat) to look for
knowing HOW MUCH heat to look for
knowing WHAT WAVELENGTH that heat is
Is that incompetence?
Looks staggering to me. And it's HANSEN'S LEADERSHIP of the SEARCH so there's no blaming 'them.'
There's no "we don't have enough microwave pulse or electronic infrared satellites" or "we can't buy a decent thermometer"
This is NASA
looking for a heater. A giant heater.
For THIRTY years.
So is Hansen lying when the instruments show it's not there?
Or is the Magic HEATER in the sky too magic for NASA to measure with the most redundant and sophisticated thermal arrays ever deployed?

I agree that Hansen is on the "alarmist" end of the scale. Note that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not doubt the reality of AGW, but argue that its effects are probably overstated for political reasons, and that we should continue to focus on economic growth and poverty reduction rather than adopt draconian policies that will make poverty worse.

I do not really understand all your "lens" stuff. The greenhouse effect is simply an increase in atmospheric opacity to the infrared wavelengths, causing the atmosphere to warm up when the surface re-radiates the energy it has absorbed from the sun.

NASA satellite observations show warming. Stars twinkle - its a very subjective effect to try to measure.

[Bob Burns]

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
CO2 might have some deleterious effects but we stick to our guns in defending free market capitalism as the only way to solve the issue effectively. THAT is the path that AR would endorse.

On that we can agree