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
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.
1 post removed
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.
1 post removed

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.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31502 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So we agree its all scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31503 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Nobody's talking about reducing our carbon emissions to zero; that's physically impossible. But a reduction of ~25% would be good,~50% would be very good, & ~75% would be outstanding. It'd only work if all of us did it, though.

I don't hate chemicals; I love them. I just want to understand what they'll do. Science helps us understand & predict what'll happen in the future.

EVERYBODY knows mitigation will be problematic after the CO2 is already emitted. Putting hydrates of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, e.g., in an attempt to increase reflective aerosols, could cause more harm than good. That's why it's so important to avoid emitting the CO2 in the 1st place.

You're just dead wrong when you say "...the physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant..." On the contrary, careful study has allowed us to understand the climate system & prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are now the primary drivers behind climate change. Any other idea is PROFOUNDLY ignorant & arrogant at the same time, surely a dangerous condition.

My government is most assuredly NOT telling me to institute a carbon tax; I'm telling THEM. It may be the only way to reduce the numbers of our children we'll kill.

Let's imagine a large carbon tax that people pay during production or at the pump. ALL of that money can be returned to all legal residents on a monthly basis.

The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks. They already have inspectors to make sure people are paying taxes. The bureaucracy is already in place. They may not always know exactly who is where, but if people are getting money they'll be happy. At MOST, the overhead would be ~1%. OK, so it's "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.

People who are heavy carbon emitters would pay thru the nose, while low carbon emitters would literally get free money. It'd stimulate creative entrepreneurs to work on renewabe energy. There'd be no need for the government to try to choose a successful Solyndra; the market would choose, because renewable energy would FINALLY be competing on a level playing field.

Lastly you say "...a real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide..." This is the height of PROFOUND anti-scientific ignorance. It's just WRONG.

You are forcing our children to pay for your selfish waste. You are psychotically hallucinating that it's "free." What you are doing is orders of magnitude worse than our national debt. You should be ashamed of yourself.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 132,688
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 11 min Truth is might 306,988
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 11 min KiMare 2,874
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 16 min KiMare 201,172
For Obama, a good December, but hard choices li... 20 min Marine Corp Pat 4
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 37 min Solid black 5,424
Ted Cruz's moves on spending bill roil Republicans 47 min Truth is might 43
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 53 min Not Duped 293,161
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 3 hr barefoot2626 702
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 hr John Galt 1,154,077
After CIA torture report: rebuilding a culture ... 7 hr woodtick57 101
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 8 hr tha Professor 287
More from around the web