No one ignores climate change.

We ignore rich guys pretending they can control weather if we pay them.

Lernaeus: I'm not skeptical of climate change .. never was. Climates change; I'm not sure what they'd be if they didn't. What do you call a table with no surface?

What I am skeptical of

Ah, the good ol' "I'm not racist b-b-but..." style post. Let's see where this goes!

Lernaeus: What I am skeptical of is politicians and their pull-peddlers using climate change as an excuse to act like little dictators by imposing taxes on people and businesses who aren't "green" enough, drawing up onerous regulations that add massive expenses to the cost of doing business, offering tax credits to people who buy "green" products from companies that whore for political favor, using environmental zoning to prevent construction on land until a sufficient source of tax revenue wants to build there, and basically the thousands of other corrupt things these people do

Ah yes, the old "politicians are meanies" argument. Because the best thing to do when your car is veering off the road is nothing. Hey, industry is a major polluter, why not incentivize them to change? NO! DICTATOR! HOW DARE WE NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DETRIMENT OUR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE! THESE POLITICIANS NEED A LESSON!

Lernaeus: Yeah, the climate changes. Maybe people have had an effect. Unless you plan on dismantling every industrial nation and killing about 90% of the human race, there's not much your stupid laws and regulations will accomplish except to maintain the careers and line the pockets of professional con artists and dictator wannabes.

So, in that light, what's wrong with killing 90% of the human race? I mean, after all, by your logic, people die, and always have, all men are mortal, and some people might kill other people, but laws haven't caused murders to stop, but here you are hemming and hawing about how mean it would be to follow your own logic to its absurd conclusion.

Naturally, this causes no discomfort in you. Naturally, you have zero internal moral consistency.

dready zim: germ78: Great. Because of the skeptics constant foot-dragging, we've lost what little precious time we had to attempt to reverse or mitigate some of the more negative effects of climate change.

/shanks a lump, assholes
//fark you very much

I didn`t realise that a FARK thread directly influenced global policy...

verbal_jizm: No, in fact there have been analyses done on the effects of global warming and the are most definitely negative.

citation needed...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x335]

Well if there is a 40 year lag (not unreasonable) between solar output and global temperature then your graph suggests that what we should expect is temperatures to rise dramatically for about 30 years starting in 1970 then stop rising around 2000, 15 years of level or slightly dropping temperatures, a slight increase for a decade after that and then a slow decline for 30 years.

Let`s watch.

How is a 40-year lag between solar output and global temperature "not unreasonable"? If the sun were to shut down today, would it take 40 years for the earth to start cooling? A more likely explanation for the graph is that until recently, solar radiation did correlate well with temperature, but something else has since become the dominant driver of atmospheric temperature.

I can't help but notice that SevenizGud has completely vanished from this thread. Hopefully he'll be back soon to tell us why he chose to use only the past 14.9 years of data!
=Smidge=

Eapoe6: No one ignores climate change.

We ignore rich guys pretending they can control weather if we pay them.

Because 97% of practicing climatologists are millionaires, and the impoverished fossil-fuel interests have been shut out of the decision-making process.

0/10. Complete fail.

Oh, please, like a half a degree is going to make that much of a difference. What a bunch of nit pickers.

nekom: Since when has ANYONE denied that the Earth has indeed warmed? I thought that was a settled matter for decades now. Wasn't the new goalpost "Well, we didn't cause it though"? Or has that been moved to "Well, we did cause it, but it's a GOOD thing" yet?

The goal posts are attached to the back of a rocket assisted Veyron. The vast majority of people falling in to the category of "Well... I really don't care who's to blame. What do we do about it?" but as you'll see in threads here, there, everywhere and in the media this willingness to do 'something' is insufficient for the true believer lentalist; they won't stop driving that Veyron until we all pontificate at the same alter.

It's a bit like EV's. Yes, much shorter range than a IC engine'd car and a lot of its requirements are hidden in the 'small print' (recharge amperage needed to deliver on "recharges in X hours" vs consumer unit limitations as an example). But then you hit idiocy where 70a is a good place to go to recharge these things but the UK government is mandating 30a rechargers and even then not at every existing fuel station in the UK. Nor are the train companies looking to build out their infrastructure to carry EV's closer to their destinations. Nor are we building our our electrical grid to meet the, theoretical, increased demand this number of EV's running around would place on it.

Because less IC cars and trucks running around reduces our oil consumption (a good thing) and makes the air cleaner (a good thing). And that seems sufficient enough reasons to invest in EV related infrastructure to me as well as heavily subsidise their sale.

It's wall to wall Derp whichever way you look and the people sat in the middle (people like me) are very quickly going "fark It, you know what? I don't give a shiat any more."

Dr. Mojo PhD: Lernaeus: I'm not skeptical of climate change .. never was. Climates change; I'm not sure what they'd be if they didn't. What do you call a table with no surface?

What I am skeptical of

Ah, the good ol' "I'm not racist b-b-but..." style post. Let's see where this goes!

Lernaeus: What I am skeptical of is politicians and their pull-peddlers using climate change as an excuse to act like little dictators by imposing taxes on people and businesses who aren't "green" enough, drawing up onerous regulations that add massive expenses to the cost of doing business, offering tax credits to people who buy "green" products from companies that whore for political favor, using environmental zoning to prevent construction on land until a sufficient source of tax revenue wants to build there, and basically the thousands of other corrupt things these people do

Ah yes, the old "politicians are meanies" argument. Because the best thing to do when your car is veering off the road is nothing. Hey, industry is a major polluter, why not incentivize them to change? NO! DICTATOR! HOW DARE WE NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DETRIMENT OUR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE! THESE POLITICIANS NEED A LESSON!

Lernaeus: Yeah, the climate changes. Maybe people have had an effect. Unless you plan on dismantling every industrial nation and killing about 90% of the human race, there's not much your stupid laws and regulations will accomplish except to maintain the careers and line the pockets of professional con artists and dictator wannabes.

So, in that light, what's wrong with killing 90% of the human race? I mean, after all, by your logic, people die, and always have, all men are mortal, and some people might kill other people, but laws haven't caused murders to stop, but here you are hemming and hawing about how mean it would be to follow your own logic to its absurd conclusion.

Naturally, this causes no discomfort in you. Naturally, you have zero internal moral consistency.

No, it's not the "politicians are meanies" argument ... mainly because I can't attribute malice to what is easier attributed to stupidity, incompetence, or corruption.

The point is that these people have agendas that have NOTHING to do with conservation or clean air or whatever; they're just using the issues as a means to further those alternate agendas. So no, I don't trust politicians and bureaucrats - their number one job requirement is the ability to lie. When f*cking Al Gore stands there and tells you you're being a sh*thead because of your "carbon footprint," but that he can absolve you of that sin if you'll buy "carbon credits" from a company on whose board he sits, tell me you nod your vacant-staring head in agreement with his message of environmental awareness.

And I'm skeptical of the science as well, mainly because (A) science requires a healthy amount of skepticism, and eschews acceptance on faith, which prominent climate alarmists want everyone to do; (B) scientists are humans, just as flawed and corruptible as any one else - they are not robot monks; and (C) in fact, a significant number of the scientists were part of that vaunted consensus about climate change have come forward and exposed numerous distortions, corruptions, and outright lies they were aware of, but pressured to stay quiet about.

common sense is an oxymoron: Eapoe6: No one ignores climate change.

We ignore rich guys pretending they can control weather if we pay them.

Because 97% of practicing climatologists are millionaires, and the impoverished fossil-fuel interests have been shut out of the decision-making process.

0/10. Complete fail.

Wow, who would have thought the new religious zealotry would be climate science. The followers foam at the mouth when some offers an opposing view. It reminds me of telling a religious person that their god is not real. Neither zealot will look at opposing information and make their own conclusion. Opposing information is shunned and ridiculed and zealously hated.

University of East Anglia

Tavistock

Lot of big money swirling around those places. I think they could take care of an oil company if they wanted to. Look it up. Try not to read angry. Learn, think, conclude.

Lernaeus: The point is that these people have agendas that have NOTHING to do with conservation or clean air or whatever

Yes, but none of those things have anything to do with whether the scientific community is accurate or not. The question is "Is humanity responsible for climate change" and not "Are politicians agenda-driven assholes" so any focus on what politicians are or are not doing and trying to link that to the veracity of claims of global warming is complete non sequitur. Focus on the question at hand, and don't just switch it up for an easier one because the long answer to "is humanity responsible for climate change" requires literally years of education in maths, sciences, with a touch of history.

And I'm skeptical of the science as well, mainly because (A) science requires a healthy amount of skepticism, and eschews acceptance on faith, which prominent climate alarmists want everyone to do; (B) scientists are humans, just as flawed and corruptible as any one else - they are not robot monks; and (C) in fact, a significant number of the scientists were part of that vaunted consensus about climate change have come forward and exposed numerous distortions, corruptions, and outright lies they were aware of, but pressured to stay quiet about.

(A) science requires skepticism, not cynicism. If someone can't or won't ignore irrelevant aspects of an issue and focus on the evidence for the question asked (e.g. thinking that what politicians do has any relevance to whether or not a scientific theory is based in fact or not), that's not skepticism. At best, that's cynicism, but more realistically it tends to be denialism. And if you really think the people in this thread who are advocating understanding of climate change want you to accept it on faith, then you truly can't be labeled a skeptic because you don't have any grasp of the fundamentals of science, math, and logic (e.g. induction, deduction, etc.) to be anything but a cynic or a denier.

(B) Scientists are human and may be flawed, but literally millions of scientists, around the world, with hundreds of backgrounds are coming to the same general conclusions. Hell, even the variation of predicted models is only a difference of quantity and not direction, since nearly all the models trying to predict the consequences point in the direction of "increase in global average annual temperature."

(C) Which only invalidates those specific points of data. It doesn't invalidate the data and conclusions of the above-mentioned millions of scientists working in nearly independent labs and field stations that come to the same conclusions with uncontested evidence, methods, and conclusions.

Seriously, absolutely nothing you said indicates an actual level of "skepticism." You illustrate instead the core aspects of science deniers and conspiracy theorists, who considering they're willing to accept just about everything except (target of their denial/conspiracy) as unquestioningly true could not be labeled skeptical at all.

Lernaeus: When f*cking Al Gore stands there and tells you you're being a sh*thead because of your "carbon footprint," but that he can absolve you of that sin if you'll buy "carbon credits" from a company on whose board he sits, tell me you nod your vacant-staring head in agreement with his message of environmental awareness.

Oh look, another moron that thinks carbon credits are like plenary indulgences. Wow, big shock. Here's how carbon credits work:

1. Entity A needs to stop emitting at least 100 quanta of CO2 to be within their emissions limit.
2. Entity A cannot meet 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
3. Entity B can meet reductions of 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
4. Entity A pays a broker to compensate Entity B for reducing their emissions by the amount Entity A should have.
5. Total emissions reduction: 100 or more. Since the atmosphere doesn't give a flying fark who the emissions are coming from, the net effect on the climate is identical to Entity A meeting their emissions standards.
6. Economic effect: The market incentivizes innovative thought to fulfill mankind's needs, keeps old businesses in business and generates new business. The economy is actually better.

Wow. So hard to understand, isn't it? It's exactly like selling indulgences if, you know, sins were quantifiable things, climatology was a religion, climatology was a religion that believed that CO2 emissions should only be forgiven if you're sincerely sorry like Catholicism, and climatology's interest was in who was producing the CO2 and not how much was being produced overall.

B-B-BUT IF THE NET EFFECT IS THE SAME THEN ALGORE... I can hear you thinking, and don't. Just stop. You've embarrassed the entire species enough; you've gone from rambling about genocide to failing math and religious studies and economics forever. Good for you. Bad for us, but really... good for you.

common sense is an oxymoron: Seriously, if someone, just about anyone, other than a Democratic senator/vice-president had raised the subject of human activity causing changes in climate, would the discussion have even come close to the current level of derpitude?

The same people who say to not take Al Gore's arguments at face value take Lord Monckton's arguments at face value. I guess they consider Graves' disease sexy.

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

The scientists have cherrypicked stations, cherrypicked reference datum, cherrypicked outlier method, cherrypicked homogeneity, cherrypicked smoother...in short cherrypicked liked a Lundhal 400 diesel...

and they STILL can't show warming. What a joke!

[wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 640x480]

Also, re the BEST report, the same denialists who signed off on their methodology are suddenly having second thoughts, but only after the results have been posted. That's not science. And formal publication in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't matter quite so much when all of the data is freely available to anyone who wants to see if it's cherrypicked or not.

Your argument IS invalid.

And yet he keeps going. I don't know how it's possible for SevenizGud to see that and not realise what a total farking retard he is, shut up and quietly exit the thread.


I simply don't understand how someone can look at the sky and proclaim that it's green.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Lernaeus: When f*cking Al Gore stands there and tells you you're being a sh*thead because of your "carbon footprint," but that he can absolve you of that sin if you'll buy "carbon credits" from a company on whose board he sits, tell me you nod your vacant-staring head in agreement with his message of environmental awareness.

Oh look, another moron that thinks carbon credits are like plenary indulgences. Wow, big shock. Here's how carbon credits work:

1. Entity A needs to stop emitting at least 100 quanta of CO2 to be within their emissions limit.
2. Entity A cannot meet 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
3. Entity B can meet reductions of 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
4. Entity A pays a broker to compensate Entity B for reducing their emissions by the amount Entity A should have.
5. Total emissions reduction: 100 or more. Since the atmosphere doesn't give a flying fark who the emissions are coming from, the net effect on the climate is identical to Entity A meeting their emissions standards.
6. Economic effect: The market incentivizes innovative thought to fulfill mankind's needs, keeps old businesses in business and generates new business. The economy is actually better.

Wow. So hard to understand, isn't it? It's exactly like selling indulgences if, you know, sins were quantifiable things, climatology was a religion, climatology was a religion that believed that CO2 emissions should only be forgiven if you're sincerely sorry like Catholicism, and climatology's interest was in who was producing the CO2 and not how much was being produced overall.

B-B-BUT IF THE NET EFFECT IS THE SAME THEN ALGORE... I can hear you thinking, and don't. Just stop. You've embarrassed the entire species enough; you've gone from rambling about genocide to failing math and religious studies and economics forever. Good for you. Bad for us, but really... good for you.


Whenever some lunatic starts rambling on about carbon credits, I think it's a good idea to bring up the EPA's Acid Rain Program, which did the same exact thing with Sulfur Dioxide emissions. This program had a proven beneficial impact on the world, seeing over 40% drop in SO2 emissions in just one decade, and a corresponding drop of 65% in Acid Rain over the same time period.

Credit systems work. It's proven. If a person is against them, they are either misinformed of the facts, or an idiot.

/Which is why I inform them of the facts, after which if they still retain the same viewpoint they become idiots.

common sense is an oxymoron: dready zim: germ78: Great. Because of the skeptics constant foot-dragging, we've lost what little precious time we had to attempt to reverse or mitigate some of the more negative effects of climate change.

/shanks a lump, assholes
//fark you very much

I didn`t realise that a FARK thread directly influenced global policy...

verbal_jizm: No, in fact there have been analyses done on the effects of global warming and the are most definitely negative.

citation needed...

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x335]

Well if there is a 40 year lag (not unreasonable) between solar output and global temperature then your graph suggests that what we should expect is temperatures to rise dramatically for about 30 years starting in 1970 then stop rising around 2000, 15 years of level or slightly dropping temperatures, a slight increase for a decade after that and then a slow decline for 30 years.

Let`s watch.

How is a 40-year lag between solar output and global temperature "not unreasonable"?

There is a new paper 'in press' in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, 'Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing.'

The Abstract states:

The role of the sun on Earth's climate variability is still much debated. Here we present an ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai, serving as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 750 years. The strong correlation between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region. The precisely dated record allowed for the identification of a 10-30 year lag between solar forcing and temperature response, underlining the importance of indirect sun-climate mechanisms involving ocean induced changes in atmospheric circulation.

Here`s my citation, where`s yours? You must have loads to be so sure of yourself...

Data showing a lag of up to 30 years is in the range such that a 40 year lag is `not unreasonable` I`m guessing you were thinking of a lag in the order of weeks or months to maybe a year (maybe hours if you have enough derp)

pudding7: Why are you so dead set against reducing pollution? I mean, at the end of the day, that's all this is about. Why are you defending a toxic environment?

Personally, I`m totally up for increasing the quality of the environment. I think that reducing benzine, sulphur, deforestation, overfishing, urban sprawl, dynamite fishing, dredge trawling, overfishing in general, planting monocrops which can be wiped out with a single efficient disease, pesticides etc etc etc is a good idea. Not shooting polar bears with guns for example would let the population increase instead of decrease.

I`m not so sure CO<sup>2</sup> can even be called a pollutant, let alone that we have `too much` and the environment is `toxic` because of it. It would take many many times more CO² in the air before we humans even noticed, never mind getting to toxic levels. Plants love it and grow better with more CO². That would be *better* for the environment in my mind.

Lernaeus: (C) in fact, a significant number of the scientists were part of that vaunted consensus about climate change have come forward and exposed numerous distortions, corruptions, and outright lies they were aware of, but pressured to stay quiet about.

[citation needed]

/or is this just an outright lie?

dready zim: I`m not so sure CO2 can even be called a pollutant, let alone that we have `too much` and the environment is `toxic` because of it. It would take many many times more CO2 in the air before we humans even noticed, never mind getting to toxic levels. Plants love it and grow better with more CO2. That would be *better* for the environment in my mind.

The terms "pollutant" and "toxic" are certainly relative terms, but they are useful for the discussion. Too much carbon dioxide goes from being beneficial to the environment to being dangerous, and not just for humans but for plants and other animals. But something to keep in mind is that there is a feedback effect going on. A slight increase in any greenhouse gas (water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide) influences the entire greenhouse effect.

And plants don't necessarily grow better with more carbon dioxide in the environment, because not all species of plants can continue to thrive in the resulting ecological changes that consequently happen. And, beyond that, because insect and other animal species also inhabit ecological niches, the effects on those non-human species also influence the survivability of plant life. Below are some links to scientific literature on the effect of climate changes on various non-human species, both animal and plant. I strongly recommend everyone reads them. If you're having trouble accessing the full PDF articles, let me know and I can e-mail them to you.

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

We have the ability to monitor and regulate our influence on it, so we might as well. Whatever other influences there are on the climate of this planet, I have yet to be presented with a logical reason for humans not to regulate our own influence. Even if human activity is the smallest variable in the equation, it is still the only one we can do something about. So why not?

Confabulat: God, Republicans are stupid. Even if you thought there was a 20% chance that manmade climate change was real (the real data is far more convincing) wouldn't a wise person at least PLAN for that? The Republicans just grumble and insist it's all a giant liberal conspiracy across the globe that has affected all the world's best scientists, because everyone hates America.

USA USA USA!

Idiots.

Nah. I think it's because if it were possible for us to do anything about climate change at this point, we'd have to shut it all down. No cars at all, no factories, no emissions of any kind. The "liberal conspiracy" was born from the Kyoto Treaty. It was going to the thing that turned global warming. Sounded good until we found out "developing" nations were exempt. You know, developing nations like China and India. If global warming was such a man-made threat, why let the biggest polluters off the hook? So the conspiracies were born. Global warming was just an excuse to curtail Western Industrialized nations' progress in favor of nations that just couldn't compete "fairly" etc etc etc.

Dr. Mojo PhD: limboslam: Now excuse me while I go turn off my A/C. Getting a little chilly in here, got that sucker set to 62.

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

While reading your post I turned on all the lights in my too-large-for-my-needs house with the Clapper. I think I'll leave them all on when I head to the gym in 26 min.

limboslam: Confabulat: God, Republicans are stupid. Even if you thought there was a 20% chance that manmade climate change was real (the real data is far more convincing) wouldn't a wise person at least PLAN for that? The Republicans just grumble and insist it's all a giant liberal conspiracy across the globe that has affected all the world's best scientists, because everyone hates America.

USA USA USA!

Idiots.

Nah. I think it's because if it were possible for us to do anything about climate change at this point, we'd have to shut it all down. No cars at all, no factories, no emissions of any kind. The "liberal conspiracy" was born from the Kyoto Treaty. It was going to the thing that turned global warming. Sounded good until we found out "developing" nations were exempt. You know, developing nations like China and India. If global warming was such a man-made threat, why let the biggest polluters off the hook? So the conspiracies were born. Global warming was just an excuse to curtail Western Industrialized nations' progress in favor of nations that just couldn't compete "fairly" etc etc etc.

That that makes any sense at all to you really makes me wonder about your intelligence.

limboslam: I think it's because if it were possible for us to do anything about climate change at this point, we'd have to shut it all down.

-If it were possible for us to do anything about obesity at this point, we'd have to stop eating entirely.
-If it were possible for us to do anything about teenage pregnancy at this point, we'd have to stop teenagers from having sex.
-If it were possible for us to do anything about unethical treatment of animals in medical testing, we'd have to shut down all medical research.
-If it were possible for us to do anything about wife-beating at this point, we'd have to shut down the institution of marriage.

dready zim: Here`s my citation, where`s yours? You must have loads to be so sure of yourself...

Looks like it's actually closer to 20-ish rather than 40 (figure 3C), plus the paper is quite explicit about how the observed temperature response is becoming less correlated in recent decades. That paper alone does not seem justification enough for assuming 40 year lag.


dready zim: I`m guessing you were thinking of a lag in the order of weeks or months to maybe a year (maybe hours if you have enough derp)

To be fair, it does get quite a lot hotter a few hours after sunrise and cooler a few hours after sunset...
=Smidge=

dready zim: There is a new paper 'in press' in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, 'Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing.'

I browse the PIP articles on GRL if not daily, then certainly weekly. I didn't remember seeing such a paper, so I did the logical thing and Googled the title. It turns out that the paper isn't "new" or "in press", but rather was published in 2009. So I'm guessing that part of your post was straight copypasta from some "skeptic" email forward or blog post. Given the tone, I would suspect Roger Pielke Sr. but I am too lazy to check this.

I actually read the paper, and they found that there was basically no correlation between solar variability and temperature in other similar local/regional proxies. Futher, they found:

all regional and NH temperature records (except the Belukha record) do not show a significant correlation with [solar proxies] for the preindustrial period

They then further write that while their single local/regional proxy shows correlation with solar over the preindustrial record, this relationship collapses as the GHG influence on climate during the industrial revolution and beyond becomes dominant:

solar activity changes are a main driver for the temperature variation in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time. However, during the industrial period (1850-2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record.

So, congratulations. It looks like there is a single local/regional proxy that shows a correlation with solar when you allow the lag to vary over decades. But the implication of you citing it is completely unjustified, and the paper goes out of its way to say that its findings aren't applicable over larger spatial scales.

Here`s my citation, where`s yours? You must have loads to be so sure of yourself...

Let's establish some things. One, that's not "your citation". Two, you didn't actually read the paper you're claiming to cite. Three, it does not support the claim you are implying it does (that a lag of ~40 years is plausible for solar-driven globally-averaged temperature change during the period of modern global warming).

What is the point of this charade?

Lernaeus: Dr. Mojo PhD: Lernaeus: I'm not skeptical of climate change .. never was. Climates change; I'm not sure what they'd be if they didn't. What do you call a table with no surface?

What I am skeptical of

Ah, the good ol' "I'm not racist b-b-but..." style post. Let's see where this goes!

Lernaeus: What I am skeptical of is politicians and their pull-peddlers using climate change as an excuse to act like little dictators by imposing taxes on people and businesses who aren't "green" enough, drawing up onerous regulations that add massive expenses to the cost of doing business, offering tax credits to people who buy "green" products from companies that whore for political favor, using environmental zoning to prevent construction on land until a sufficient source of tax revenue wants to build there, and basically the thousands of other corrupt things these people do

Ah yes, the old "politicians are meanies" argument. Because the best thing to do when your car is veering off the road is nothing. Hey, industry is a major polluter, why not incentivize them to change? NO! DICTATOR! HOW DARE WE NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DETRIMENT OUR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE! THESE POLITICIANS NEED A LESSON!

Lernaeus: Yeah, the climate changes. Maybe people have had an effect. Unless you plan on dismantling every industrial nation and killing about 90% of the human race, there's not much your stupid laws and regulations will accomplish except to maintain the careers and line the pockets of professional con artists and dictator wannabes.

So, in that light, what's wrong with killing 90% of the human race? I mean, after all, by your logic, people die, and always have, all men are mortal, and some people might kill other people, but laws haven't caused murders to stop, but here you are hemming and hawing about how mean it would be to follow your own logic to its absurd conclusion.

Naturally, this causes no discomfort in you. Naturally, you have zero internal moral consistency.

No, it's not the "polit ...

Except that your A, B, and C just aren't true. But hey, keep pretending WE'RE the ones operating on faith here.

Eapoe6: common sense is an oxymoron: Eapoe6: No one ignores climate change.

We ignore rich guys pretending they can control weather if we pay them.

Because 97% of practicing climatologists are millionaires, and the impoverished fossil-fuel interests have been shut out of the decision-making process.

0/10. Complete fail.

Wow, who would have thought the new religious zealotry would be climate science. The followers foam at the mouth when some offers an opposing view.

Yes, the denialists are in quite a tizzy right now because one of "their own" has placed science ahead of ideology.

It reminds me of telling a religious person that their god is not real. Neither zealot will look at opposing information and make their own conclusion. Opposing information is shunned and ridiculed and zealously hated.

Which side proposed the BEST study in an attempt to eliminate human bias? Which side is now criticizing the BEST study results for not supporting their predetermined conclusions?

University of East Anglia

No evidence of wrongdoing was found.

Tavistock

What's a Tavistock? Glenn Beck seems to think they're part of some global conspiracy or other; is this the source of your "data"?

Lot of big money swirling around those places. I think they could take care of an oil company if they wanted to. Look it up. Try not to read angry. Learn, think, conclude.

Congratulations. You've just painted yourself as a quasi-religious zealot who ignores science, invokes conspiracy theories, and thinks the oil companies are powerless victims.

I learned, I thought, I concluded.

Funny.

I guess even Jim takes vacations.

cthellis: Funny.

I guess even Jim takes vacations.

I guess he just hasn't noticed this thread yet...

the usual derp can be found here

KiltedBastich: He's probably working himself into a froth about how Muller was bought off by the conspiracy.

Didn't he fail to address that very specifically in one from last week?

KiltedBastich: HighZoolander: cthellis: Funny.

I guess even Jim takes vacations.

I guess he just hasn't noticed this thread yet...

the usual derp can be found here

He's probably working himself into a froth about how Muller was bought off by the conspiracy. He's got to find some way to spin the fact that Muller made all the data publicly available for anyone to replicate his analysis. My money's on him claiming it's all hoaxed data from top to bottom. It will be interesting to see just how far down the rabbit hole he's willing to go.

I'd go with him claiming that it's not observational data (whether it is or not) and/or Miskolczi has mathematical proof otherwise.

But it's a solid bet that he'll make at least 3 mutually contradictory claims before he starts insulting everyone.

nekom: Since when has ANYONE denied that the Earth has indeed warmed? I thought that was a settled matter for decades now. Wasn't the new goalpost "Well, we didn't cause it though"? Or has that been moved to "Well, we did cause it, but it's a GOOD thing" yet?

The first-order climate change deniers--the ones who claim that the Earth is not warming--are still around. You hear from them everytime there's a blizzard somewhere. A lot of homeschoolers stick to the "It ain't happening" line. They have to--those ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years have to have been faked by jewish atheist scientists because the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I have even encountered what I ended up labeling "zero-order" climate change deniers--folks who do not believe that the greenhouse effect is real.

Jon Snow: dready zim: There is a new paper 'in press' in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, 'Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing.'

I actually read the paper, and they found that there was basically no correlation between solar variability and temperature in other similar local/regional proxies. Futher, they found:

all regional and NH temperature records (except the Belukha record) do not show a significant correlation with [solar proxies] for the preindustrial period

They then further write that while their single local/regional proxy shows correlation with solar over the preindustrial record, this relationship collapses as the GHG influence on climate during the industrial revolution and beyond becomes dominant:

solar activity changes are a main driver for the temperature variation in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time. However, during the industrial period (1850-2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record.


So not only does the article state pretty much the opposite, it agrees with the temperature-vs-solar radiation graph which shows a decoupling as CO2 becomes the dominant forcing mechanism...the very graph used upthread to support the suggestion of a 40-year lag in the first place.

common sense is an oxymoron: So not only does the article state pretty much the opposite, it agrees with the temperature-vs-solar radiation graph which shows a decoupling as CO2 becomes the dominant forcing mechanism...the very graph used upthread to support the suggestion of a 40-year lag in the first place.

I don't claim to know what dready zim's deal is, but s/he doesn't seem to understand much about climate or have access to/actually read the primary scientific literature. If I had to guess, it looks like classic D-K.

But why people think regurgitating other people's talking points verbatim is a good idea in the age of Google is beyond me.

I really have come to love the "Plants need CO2 and they thrive with more, thus the planet is better off with all the excess CO2 around" argument.

Hey, Nimrods - you may want to pay attention to this fact - one hell of a lot of plants and animals don't live on land, they live in the oceans (perhaps even a majority).

Now, what impact does an excessive amount of CO2 when absorbed by seewater? The oceans get far more acidic. At the current rate, the oceans are likely to be more than 150% more acidic than they are now. (They are 30% more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial revolution.) This would mean the oceans would be the most acidic since 20 Million years ago.

This increase could mean the virtual extinction of oysters, and any other calcifying species such as many plankton, coral, etc. With them is going to go the entire environment of the oceans and likely the mass extinction of many other species.

It's not a good scenario, but almost a certainty if CO2 emissions are not controlled, or mankind embarks on a massive program to battle the acidification of our oceans.

Link

lawboy87: I really have come to love the "Plants need CO2 and they thrive with more, thus the planet is better off with all the excess CO2 around" argument.

Hey, Nimrods - you may want to pay attention to this fact - one hell of a lot of plants and animals don't live on land, they live in the oceans (perhaps even a majority).

Now, what impact does an excessive amount of CO2 when absorbed by seewater? The oceans get far more acidic. At the current rate, the oceans are likely to be more than 150% more acidic than they are now. (They are 30% more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial revolution.) This would mean the oceans would be the most acidic since 20 Million years ago.

This increase could mean the virtual extinction of oysters, and any other calcifying species such as many plankton, coral, etc. With them is going to go the entire environment of the oceans and likely the mass extinction of many other species.

It's not a good scenario, but almost a certainty if CO2 emissions are not controlled, or mankind embarks on a massive program to battle the acidification of our oceans.

Link

What the hell are you talking about? If you've never lived by the ocean, you might not have heard of clam trees, but I have it on good authority that oysters and clams grow on trees, so they'll be fine.

Does this lieberal conspiracy not know the bounds of good taste?

abb3w: ...you did see the bit I included about "social validation"?

No, I'd posted my response before seeing yours. I understand repeating the "message" from like-minded people. I don't understand the naked plagiarism and copypasta. How hard is it to express a thought in your own words?

TV's Vinnie: verbal_jizm: TV's Vinnie: KiltedBastich: TV's Vinnie: KiltedBastich: You made a shiat argument, it got torn apart and you got laughed at for it, and now you're trying to make yourself feel better by proclaiming how awesome you are at making people mad. Uh huh.

Yeah. Cuz....snif.....it really hurts when total strangers over the internet are being meanies to me.

[www.wallstreetoasis.com image 135x180]

Good to see you are continuing to contribute such worthwhile arguments in support of your position.

This is me laughing at you some more. I think you're probably used to it by now.

Keep practicing at that trollin' thing. You'll one day get the hang of it.

Says a guy who knows his trolling. You've offered nothing BUT trolling in this thread.

last word. :)

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ah yes, the old "politicians are meanies" argument. Because the best thing to do when your car is veering off the road is nothing. Hey, industry is a major polluter, why not incentivize them to change? NO! DICTATOR! HOW DARE WE NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DETRIMENT OUR SPECIES IN THE FUTURE! THESE POLITICIANS NEED A LESSON!

The thing I love about these kinds of arguments is that, in fact, the amount of political lobbying money that is anti-climate-change dwarfs the lobbying money for climate change. The Koch Brothers alone outspend the entire pro-climate-change movement. But it's totally the politicians that force climate change down our throat, especially Al Gore! (who hasn't held anything in government since 2000 (or 1992, depending on your views of the veep seat.))

Jon Snow: No, I'd posted my response before seeing yours. I understand repeating the "message" from like-minded people. I don't understand the naked plagiarism and copypasta. How hard is it to express a thought in your own words?

...because that would require even a meager understanding of the matter in and fashion?

KiltedBastich: Possibly. I don't pay too much attention to GenerallyJumbled. His penchant to argue in all seriousness for full-scale worldwide conspiracy means I can't take him seriously as anything other than an object of ridicule.

There has been plenty of evidence to lead all scientific communities to that same conclusion.

Everyone knows you go into science for the money and fame and money and genital-fondling and money and racecars and money.

r1chard3: TV's Vinnie: verbal_jizm: TV's Vinnie: KiltedBastich: TV's Vinnie: KiltedBastich: You made a shiat argument, it got torn apart and you got laughed at for it, and now you're trying to make yourself feel better by proclaiming how awesome you are at making people mad. Uh huh.

Yeah. Cuz....snif.....it really hurts when total strangers over the internet are being meanies to me.

[www.wallstreetoasis.com image 135x180]

Good to see you are continuing to contribute such worthwhile arguments in support of your position.

This is me laughing at you some more. I think you're probably used to it by now.

Keep practicing at that trollin' thing. You'll one day get the hang of it.

Says a guy who knows his trolling. You've offered nothing BUT trolling in this thread.

last word. :)

[www.motifake.com image 336x252]

Jesus Christ. Are you guys STILL roidraging?

Bontesla: Here's the thing - even if the Kock brothers did acknowledge that global warming is real and that man is acting as a catalyst - they wouldn't be advocating for new measures.

We've seen dozens of instances in which this group has preferred short-term success for themselves at the cost of severe long-term cost to others.

They're on their way out of this life and they've shown little desire to protect future generations for others.

The only reason any-farking-body has anything to do with or say about GW. Lining their own pockets. Shut up and fark off hippies, or come join me in the fight to end underage prostitution, you know, something real and worthy of all the efforts being put into farking GW.