Global Warming

[piratey 6]

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

 

Been saying since the start, the whole thing has been a massive cash grab. The amount of money pumped into Green Power, research grants, carbon credits, EPA taxes, book deals/movies(Al Gore) and the various donation groups, is simply staggering.

 

The science has always been flimsy and the proof has never been there. I honestly believe these liberal causes are filling the void left by people becoming more secular. They need something to believe in. It feeds the ego and self importance of people to believe by going green, they are contributing to the greater good.

[nd1baby 0]

I think they saw global warming kind of cooling off so its now "climate change".

[1qa 0]

Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.

 

 

Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

 

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

 

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.

[jessemoore97 1,281]

HMMM. Just last week or so, I read an article that discussed the decreased amount of sunspots that have been below the norm or projections for our sun. It discussed how the sun goes through 11 year cycles of activity with regard to sun spots etc, and how that activity effects the earth. Anyhow, the point of the article was that due to the reduced sunspot activity this cycle, scientists believed that it would have a cooling effect on Earth's climate as a result.

 

Now I'm sorry, but to imply that the large fiery ball in the sky has a direct effect on weather here is preposterous !

 

I have no doubt that the Earth's climate changes, that's what it does, and has for billions of years which is far longer than mankind's existence. Its really hard to buy into the arguments that man is directly responsible for the changes we see today. Are we part of the equation, sure, but entirely or mostly responsible for what's going on is a bullsh*t argument that cannot be proven. We cannot accurately gauge what we are or aren't causing, and what is natural cycles of the Earth and Sun coupled with tectonic activity(volcanoes and earthquakes) as well as numerous other variables.

 

Honestly its really hard to take some of the proposals seriously that come from the climatologists. For instance its been argued that animal flatulence is a direct contributor to climate change. That was argued about 20 years ago saying that the reduction of the rain forest caused the termite population to grow and their farts, methane, caused increased levels in the atmosphere. Now they argue that large cattle herds are in fact responsible. C'mon!

 

Science is far from perfect, and there are many holes with the work being done in proving climate change. There are so many variables that cannot be easily explained or accounted for. For God's sake the data was shown/admitted to be fudged in order to "prove" the shoddy theory a few years ago. How much research or how many papers before and since relied on faulty data to support a flawed idea? Where is the oversight?

[nd1baby 0]

It's best to keep an open mind. Once upon a time plate tectonics was a crackpot theory and its father was ostracised from the scientific community. Then science evolved and accepted it as gospel.

 

If science is right that the earth is 4 billion years old, 200 years worth of data points is not enough for me to buy in yet. Especially not with the conflict of interest coming from the so called green industries who are in competition with big oil and the relationship between scientific studies and government grants. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[piratey 6]

Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.

 

 

Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

 

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

 

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.

 

What trends again? The fact there has been no warming in decades?

 

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030

 

But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source. Being an entity that stands to make a great deal of money to continue the myth of man-made global warming. They stop collecting checks and their careers are over if it is proved as not true...

 

It's not correlated to anything. Your flimsy science exists on a sample size of roughly 70-80 years and extrapolated over the history of the planet.

 

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.

[piratey 6]

It's best to keep an open mind. Once upon a time plate tectonics was a crackpot theory and its father was ostracised from the scientific community. Then science evolved and accepted it as gospel.

 

If science is right that the earth is 4 billion years old, 200 years worth of data points is not enough for me to buy in yet. Especially not with the conflict of interest coming from the so called green industries who are in competition with big oil and the relationship between scientific studies and government grants. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

It's less than 200 years! What's the number one factor that global warming alarmist point to? The ice caps right? Man hadn't crossed the arctic circle until 1773. We hadn't spotted Antarctica until 1819. We didn't make confirmed land fall until 1853. The first extended stay in Antarctica was 1897...We reached the south pole first in 1911...And the north pole? The first time we mapped the north arctic ocean was 1946...

 

Look, we've only been monitoring the ice levels in the arctic regions for about 50 years. And using that we are making wild assumptions... Never mind we barely have any knowledge of Solar Science and space winds...

 

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme.

[ND3 0]

What trends again? The fact there has been no warming in decades?

 

 

This is a pretty bold claim that I haven't heard before. Do you have a source? (The linked article isn't a source, it provides no data or sources, and it's excessive use of "quotes" makes me feel like he is just mocking at people who believe in climate change)

 

But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source. Being an entity that stands to make a great deal of money to continue the myth of man-made global warming. They stop collecting checks and their careers are over if it is proved as not true....

 

 

I think it's more NOAA that stands to make money/gain grants than NASA...

 

It's not correlated to anything. Your flimsy science exists on a sample size of roughly 70-80 years and extrapolated over the history of the planet.

 

So we only have climate data for less than a century? So how do we know the Little Ice Age even happened? There are ways to measure average temperature over time without using thermometers.

[piratey 6]

This is a pretty bold claim that I haven't heard before. Do you have a source? (The linked article isn't a source, it provides no data or sources, and it's excessive use of "quotes" makes me feel like he is just mocking at people who believe in climate change)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

 

So we only have climate data for less than a century? So how do we know the Little Ice Age even happened? There are ways to measure average temperature over time without using thermometers

 

The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. But nothing but "educated" guesses as far as actual temps go...

Edited December 5, 2013 by piratey

[TDUB 0]

But it's cool that you use climate.nasa.gov as your source.

 

Almost as cool as citing the NYPOST. That rag is one step up from the National Enquirer...

[piratey 6]

Almost as cool as citing the NYPOST. That rag is one step up from the National Enquirer...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/

 

Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist.

[TDUB 0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/

 

So the NYPOST (owned by Newscorp), The Daily Mail (considered the UK's most conservative tabloid), and an article written by a member of the Heartland Institute (who has ties to Exxon and at one time lobbied for Phillip Morris questioning the cancer risks associated with secondhand smoke)...not exactly unbiased media.

[ND3 0]

The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. But nothing but "educated" guesses as far as actual temps go...

 

And that's exactly how we find historical climate data over thousands of years or more. Saying that we only have 70-80 years of data is unequivocally false.

[corysold 0]

And that's exactly how we find historical climate data over thousands of years or more. Saying that we only have 70-80 years of data is unequivocally false.

 

Sure, but that data also supports that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past then they currently are.

[hawaiiirish 62]

I cannot take seriously stuff presented by Michael Fumento & Peter Ferrara---

 

Fumento has been on every conservative --pro corporate cause since hector was a pup--- second hand smoke is good for you--aids is myth-------he has been funded by both phillip morris & Monsanto---

 

Its just ridiculous to complain about a " massive cash grab" by green industries and scientists while gleening the REAL TRUTH on presentations by Fumento & Ferrara---two fella's whose backing and agenda are the VERY DEFINITION of corporate bias and whose reputation is quite checkered on many counts.

 

Best to leave conspiracy & ideology on the shelf when looking for SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

 

aloha's

[ND3 0]

Sure, but that data also supports that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past then they currently are.

 

The world has been much hotter in the past than it is now.

[corysold 0]

The world has been much hotter in the past than it is now.

 

Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.

[piratey 6]

Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.

 

Shhh, that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

How are we suppose to feel good about buying our Prius's and our swirly light bulbs and donating to the Sierra club, when it actually doesn't influence the climate? How are we suppose to be feel like we can save the world now!? My inflated sense of importance on a global scale is going to take a massive hit. I'm going to feel like a total dupe for believing in a hoax this whole time... Man, I'm just glad I'm not a scientist. Imagine the egg on their face? Taking all this research money on something that turns out to be a fabrication... I bet they're just biting at the chomp to admit they were wrong for the last 10+ years

[1qa 0]

Throwing out conspiracy theories and articles written by largely corporate shills is not persuasive. Overwhelmingly scientific evidence is showing that "climate change is real and it is because of us"

 

Slate has an article and links to your counter argument.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/30/climate_change_it_s_real_and_it_s_us.html

 

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a stark report... why are they any more believable than the NYPost?

 

"Of course, the deniers have been spinning at nearly relativistic speeds trying to downplay this report. They talk about the pause, they talk about how sensitive the climate is to CO2, they talk about the IPCC being unreliable. But the bottom line is they’re wrong. Ironically, due to its very nature, the IPCC is actually quite conservative; the panel has actually been getting flak from real scientists because the observations — heat absorption, ice loss, sea level rise, and so on — have in almost all cases actually outpaced predictions from earlier reports. In reality, things are worse."

 

 

Give me a better theory that supports the orgy of data saying CO2 is not the cause of warming... with sources, please.

[ND3 0]

Right, so why would an increase in temperature or CO2 now be immediately linked to a human cause? Something like 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is released by humans, 97% is naturally released.

 

Well, first of all, there's a lot of methane being released into the atmosphere as well.

 

A small percentage can play a big role when we're talking about how a few degrees of warming can drastically change the dynamics of the planet.

 

Shhh, that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

How are we suppose to feel good about buying our Prius's and our swirly light bulbs and donating to the Sierra club, when it actually doesn't influence the climate? How are we suppose to be feel like we can save the world now!? My inflated sense of importance on a global scale is going to take a massive hit. I'm going to feel like a total dupe for believing in a hoax this whole time... Man, I'm just glad I'm not a scientist. Imagine the egg on their face? Taking all this research money on something that turns out to be a fabrication... I bet they're just biting at the chomp to admit they were wrong for the last 10+ years

 

Obviously there are people who blindly buy into things like this- who think that buying an electric car will actually make a difference. That's clearly false and it often gives people an undeserved sense of elitism (RE: The South Park episode). So yeah, that describes some of the population, but not nearly all of it. Generalizations are rarely indicative of entire populations.

 

The point is, there is almost a consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real and it's caused by humans. To shove that to the side because a few articles from hyper-conservative writers/publications with an agenda say so is naive and, frankly, foolish.

 

Look, the world isn't "supposed" to be any particular temperature. We're not damaging the planet by standing by while we're pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are, however, putting the future of humanity at risk. If it's worth it to you to say "I don't think it's real, I should mock everyone who believes in it, we shouldn't even really care", fine. I think, for the future of our species, the onus of responibility is on us to be a little more forward thinking with our habits.

 

That said, I'm pretty sure China releases WAY more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than anyone in the Western world, and we aren't going to convince them to change anytime soon.