Finally.

And the republicans dint do that? Whats this hate with baby boomers lol.

 

 

Also another foolgenius myth: At original publication, Copernicus' epoch-making book caused only mild controversy, and provoked no fierce sermons about contradicting Holy Scripture. 

It only got really bad when some monks thought: hey when the we orbit around the sun, and the sun is like a fire, maybe the stars are like suns themselves very far away and orbiting around are other planets with on them other people.

Really funny people always cite some "genius who was named a fool in his time" when 99% of the scientific community thinks the theory is retarded.

• every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992
• the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15
• every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976
• the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25
• every year since 1964 has been warmer than 1956
• every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Going back a few pages just because we need some new material and I've been away for a bit:

This is NASA, guys.  You really think they are being blinded by a liberal pinko bias?  How does that happen, exactly?  We just went through eight years of politically motivated attempts to control what these people were saying, and it didn't work.  You really trying to say Obama is succeeding here where Bush failed? 

What about the Science Council of Japan?  You think they give two figs either way about small government or the erosion of conservative American values?  They are doing simple science, and they don't care about my biases, or yours, for that matter.  I'm sure they have their own, uniquely Japanese biases which no doubt involve tentacles.  My point is that when you look at the scientific 'consensus' on a global level it's nigh on impossible to reduce it to political ideology.  The work speaks for itself, and it's too widely distributed to chalk up to worldview alone, or even to self-interest (climate scientists made a living before AGW, you know?)  

The comment was tongue-in-cheek and certainly not about 'those who don't agree.'  I'm quite happy with the idea that you have critically examined the evidence and found it wanting - you are free to draw your own conclusions, even if I can't understand how you reach them. 

It's pretty clear what the vested interests are on the skeptic side, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why most every reputable climate scientist in the world, and those who believe them, have vested interests in declaring low-grade, long-term apocalypse. 

Satan's Spin Doctors refers specifically to the spin strategists for Big Tobacco, who, again I'm not comparing you or anyone else in this thread to.  That said, here is a strongly-worded report (crafted by liberal spin doctors, go team!) which conclusively demonstrates that Exxon Mobil is paying former members of the Tobacco Lobby to work their magic on climate change (see table 3).  Guess whose side they are on?

My point in the earlier comment was that these people are effective, and quite willing to earn their living by confusing the populace their clients are killing.  I wish the Green Illuminati had used its vast resources and control over all Scientific Associations and Governments to recruit them first, because while I might find them morally repugnant I can't argue with their results. 



Moosetek13 - Mumble already shot this one down, several times, but you bring it up every time you come through this thread.  Hopefully to put the nail in the coffin -

'they' in the 1970s were a book, a few articles in magazines like Newsweek, and a small amount of speculation in scientific journals based on recently discovered glacial cycles.   This guy has collected everything your  chosen pundit recycled his meme from in one place, for your convenience: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

'they' in 2009 is everybody who has an education in Climate Science which goes beyond local weatherman, who isn't also being paid by Exxon or the API.  Mumble gave you a comprehensive list way upthread.  If both Academia Brasiliera de Ciências and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had said we were looking at an Ice Age in the 70's maybe you would have a point.  As it is, I guess we should be happy you are using a talking point which was debunked more recently than Psychoak's Satellites of Truth/Ground Stations of Betrayal Theory.  Maybe you could stop using it, now, so we can move on?  



It's interesting that there's no linebreak between those sentences, Daiwa.  If a casual reader wandered by he could take the second sentence as a continuation of the first.

"I want to keep my money so the science isn't settled."

You didn't really mean it that way, did you?  Because that would be as interesting in its own way as Psychoak's assertion that Florida and Italy are small loss to humanity. 

Please understand, I'm not trying to demonize those who don't agree with my liberal biases (you are doing fine without me ^^), but aren't we confusing what motivates us (i.e. greed, apathy) with what the world tells us?  It's called An Inconvenient Truth for a reason....



See, here's what's funny about that analogy.  Copernicus, or Galileo, or whatever persecuted/vindicated genius you'd like to assess, was pitting *repeatable observations* against an established faith-based ideology.  Back in the day established ideology won, short-term, because repeatable observations weren't yet en vogue. 

Which is why the all little puppies are laughing at you - the present conversation deals with an entire disciplined community of people who are making repeatable observations over several decades vs....what, exactly?  I see the skepticism, more importantly, I see motivations for it which seem psychological, political, or financial, but nowhere do I see repeatable observations which show countering information.



I like that post a bunch, reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/

The data is adjusted for a good reason, and the methodology is laid out in detail.  If Eschenbach used easily available resources to get his results and they were different from what NOAA was claiming then he might actually have something.  As it is the best response to this I could find in 5 minutes or less is the Economist's here, and Eschenbach apparently agrees, since he puts up a rebuttal linked at the bottom, which is responded to in turn.  I'd say it's a fairly hard pwning, but I'm sure the OP did its job of mocking up another point for 'debate' to prevent actual policy shift. 

Meanwhile, I like the Economist's perspective on items like this:  "my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story"

Not once, in all the sound and fury of 15 pages of comments in this thread alone have we seen a link to that peer-reviewed journal article.  A few thoroughly debunked criticisms of the data, or the way it's interpreted, by bought former weathermen just isn't the same thing, and I can't help but admire the dissonance loops some folks must jump through to maintain a worldview where it is. 

I'd love to see the skeptic's narrative on the theory of gravity next, assuming its existence affects your wallets, of course.

So what if it's NASA?  One of the problems with AGW is that the GISS data are now subject to a lot of head scratching.

Even us AGW skeptics are willing to believe that it may be a bit warmer now - I've been around since 1956, I've seen the extent to which certain glaciers have retreated & all the rest, and I'm willing to accept that.  It's the whole idea that CO2 is the principle cause, that CO2 levels must be reduced by means expensive and limiting, and that we know what we're doing when we attempt it that I'm not prepared to accept at face value.  The arguments about climate change & AGW/cap-trade/'carbon footprint' get conflated regularly.

Exactly.  I could be much more easily convinced that deforestation is the issue or urban heat islands accumulating are the issue.  These things DO have an impact.

I could even see the argument that all the urban heat islands in the northern hemisphere causing adjustments to the ocean currents that are resulting in warmer temperatures.

We've wiped out much of the planet's forests. That's a real problem.

Heck, the millions of farm animals used in agribusiness seem more convincing. Lots of methane.

But CO2? No way. 

And what's worse, the more we look at the raw data the worse the story gets because even that looks (at best) sloppily collected or (at worst) monkeyed around with to get to a pre-conceived conclusion.

 

Wow dude, that came outta nowhere. If thats all you have to counter what I said, then we might as well be getting into a juevenille argument about who's dick is bigger and yo mamma jokes. So if you don't belive that I'm bigger than you, just go ask yo mamma; if she can still walk.

 

* I spells wrong to phit in yo.

I work at a university, as "staff" rather than "faculty" - and even though some of the "staff" have PhDs of their own, they aren't regarded as being "real" doctors. Those of us without PhDs are pretty much ignored, even in areas outside the bounds of the degree in question. I'm still dealing with an enrollment spike problem from a decision two years ago we TOLD the department chair would happen, but his name had PhD attatched to it, so the people who dealt with the issues on a daily basis *couldn't* be right about it.

One of the things that apparently gets issued with a PhD is an unshakable determination that anyone without one is hopelessly inept and uninformed in any area a PhD chooses to bend his attention to. I deal with that attitude on a daily basis, and Mumble seems to be following the party line there. Which is why I can state with a fair amount of certainty that whoever wrote that Economist article has a PhD in *something*. It really doesn't matter what it's in, because he has a PhD and people who don't are by definition inferior.

Yeah, paving over large sections of the planet couldn't possibly have an effect on heat.

As to CO2, I really should have looked into this earlier, seeing as I *do* have a degree in chemistry. Beer's law has not been repealed. For the uninformed, Beer's law relates concentration to transmission of light through a medium. And if you do even a bit of math, it becomes blindingly obvious that even at 350 ppm, the atmosphere is effectively opaque to the wavelengths CO2 absorbs, doubling the concentration would have a completely negligible effect on heat.

http://www.john-daly.com//artifact.htm (the original article is in german)

Or for a fuller explanation

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Neither of these authors have any sort of wiki article, so I have to assume they're paid by enron and no one's bothered to figure out how yet

 

Interesting article....and yet we are told there is a "scientific consensus" about AGW, when articles like this prove otherwise.

That is the fallacy (and the lie) of AGW.  The second part is completely false.  IF there is no AGW and IF we trash the world's (not just the US) economy trying to fix a problem that does not exist, then many-many millions (if not billions) will suffer and die because of it.

Cleaning up the ecology is a good and noble endeavor and is being done by the primary non-kyoto signing nation (USA - Output down 3% in 10 years) while the kyoto signers continue to raise polution (up 0.1% in 10 years). WITHOUT destroying the economy which would make it impossible to help anyone.  But cleaning up the environment is being done without a mandate to destroy the economy.  Keep it up with the religion of AGW and there will be no assets to use to clean up anything, or improve anything, or help anyone.  And millions will die "but our intentions were good!!!!!!".

The argo project looks interesting.  What I found odd is that somewhere in their site it is stated that the ocean seems to have had a steady temperature for the past couple of years.  Immediately it is added that this does not mean that AGW is not happening!!! Ugh. Since if the results were that the temperature were rising AGW denialists and sceptics can of course simply make the same statement. 

As well http://www.climateprediction.net/ looks interesting.  When I see the news reports of 45,000 delegates to the Copenhagen summit I wonder why this distributed computing project seems so underwhelming when arguably it should be the one with the most terraflops. 

Your injuring the dignity of noble competitors. 

This is the easiest to digest summary of the GW debate.

Psychoak, instead of instantly assuming someone isn't educated you may listen. For one in the 50ties we didnt know about global warming. It's also funny that you consider that THE past. Maybe we learn about different things here and not about who had the congressional majority in america. Regardless I know that the Democrats had it.

CaptainWin get your head out of your ass and read the thread or even this last page just ONCE. 

Quote (cmon we Chromers got 4%, we ought to be supported):

Moosetek13 - Mumble already shot this one down, several times, but you bring it up every time you come through this thread.  Hopefully to put the nail in the coffin -

'they' in the 1970s were a book, a few articles in magazines like Newsweek, and a small amount of speculation in scientific journals based on recently discovered glacial cycles.   This guy has collected everything your  chosen pundit recycled his meme from in one place, for your convenience:http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

'they' in 2009 is everybody who has an education in Climate Science which goes beyond local weatherman, who isn't also being paid by Exxon or the API.  Mumble gave you a comprehensive list way upthread.  If both Academia Brasiliera de Ciências and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences had said we were looking at an Ice Age in the 70's maybe you would have a point.  As it is, I guess we should be happy you are using a talking point which was debunked more recently than Psychoak's Satellites of Truth/Ground Stations of Betrayal Theory.  Maybe you could stop using it, now, so we can move on?   

 

Really whenever another one of these replies pop up I'll just quote bright Kestrel who will explain it for you once more.

 

quote:

IF AGW is real and we dont take action then we are f***ed. If AGW is not real and we still take action (like the sceptics fear) then we might slow down our economy for the sake of getting cleaner technology and development...

No i agree with the skeptics, this is bullshit. Doing all these thing because it "could"happen is fucking retarded. Like psychoak said, you don't cut of your balls because there's a change you could get testicle cancer. However this isn't a "could".

 The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.^[92]

 

 

Quote=Daiwa :

Comparing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 to 1990 levels, the U.S. emissions were up by 15.8%,^[100] with irregular fluctuations from one year to another but a general trend to increase.^[101] At the same time, the EU group of 23 (EU-23) Nations had reduced their emissions by 5%.^[102] 

The entire world ratified the treaty, that china/russia/brazil/india are in an economic boom and aren't the most trustworthy doesnt mean the kyoto protocol was flawed, it means their emissions make it look like kyoto was a failure. Other countries (ie the EU) cut their emissions. You didn't even try. Not only were you using skewed data you were also lieing: America's emissions are 15.8 percent up. 

 

 

 

 

PS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png thats... funny. 

 

 

Just go write for Rush Limbaugh already. That argument has more holes in it than yo mama.