Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TechMan on February 26, 2014, 03:36:25 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/)
Greenpeace co-founder told lawmakers that there is no evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. He also stated that he left Greenpeace when the group became more interested in politics than the environment.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,”
More at the link.
-
Hang the skeptic! >:D :P
-
Realism has no place in Climate Change. It's the POLITICS DARN IT!! Don't you forget it.
-
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03)
-
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03)
Grrrrrr.
Thanks. I had no way of knowing that was some kind of download, and now I've got some crap on my phone I don't want.
Grrrrrr
-
Grrrrrr.
Thanks. I had no way of knowing that was some kind of download, and now I've got some crap on my phone I don't want.
Grrrrrr
You mean a PDF?
-
You mean a PDF?
Grrrrrr
-
For years I've been saying that the problem is the sample size. Two hundred years of accurate measurements perhaps showing an increase in temperature do not trump graphs going back 400,000 years which clearly show fairly regular cycles with spikey short-term variations in each cycle.
It looks to me that we just happen to be in a short-term upspike, but according to what I used to read 30-40 years ago, we are probably heading toward a new ice age.
Besides, even if the earth is warming, that would probably enhance our agricultural abilities to feed our 7.146 billion people.... which number is rapidly growing. I mean, after all, by burning all those carbonaceous fuels, we're just producing more plant food. :)
I say again: The real problem is the very small, very recent, sample size we're looking at.
Terry, 230RN
-
Realism has no place in Climate Change. It's the POLITICS a religion DARN IT!! Don't you forget it.
Had to.
-
For years I've been saying that the problem is the sample size. Two hundred years of accurate measurements perhaps showing an increase in temperature do not trump graphs going back 400,000 years which clearly show fairly regular cycles with spikey short-term variations in each cycle . . .
And at least some of the measurements I've seen purporting to prove "global" warming are clearly illustrating the "urban heat island" effect - a local phenomenon.
-
And at least some of the measurements I've seen purporting to prove "global" warming are clearly illustrating the "urban heat island" effect - a local phenomenon.
Yep. Even by their own standards the temp stations don't meet the guidlines for site quality. GIGO.
-
Yep. Even by their own standards the temp stations don't meet the guidlines for site quality. GIGO.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't care. I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that. I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in. Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.
Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that? Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?
-
Maybe, maybe not. I don't care. I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that. I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in. Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.
Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that? Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?
Yup. Maybe there's a "silent majority' of them out there that do think like that, but they are well overshadowed by the loud and obnoxious "turn off oil today and turn on solar tomorrow" crowd. There is no reasoning with those people. They have no scientific, engineering, or other logical backgrounds that allow them to see the problem with their binary solutions. A twenty year transition from oil to some alternative energy source(s) is 19.9 years too long for them. They are like spoiled children.
If they embraced the enlightened self-interest of most of the population, they would be much better served. If you can show me an alternative-fueled vehicle that outperforms my oil eater at the same or lesser cost, with ubiquitous fuel and parts available, why wouldn't I want to drive it? Instead, they want to regulate and fine me into compliance with their world view, and they want it NOW. People, especially Americans, have an almost genetic aversion to that kind of behavior.
-
^ +1 and thanks.
That pdf should receive wider circulation. I captured it for future reference. I may even print it out.
Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.
There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Heh. "...the fallacy of 'extreme certainty'...” I didn't know there were degrees of certainty. I thought p=1.0 was it. I'm 110% certain that's what my stat teachers told me.
Terry, 230RN
-
Gee, how come these people get paid big bucks to make that determination while I have been saying global warming/climate change is a bunch of hooey all along......chris3
-
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03)
A most excellent read. Thanks!
-
Maybe, maybe not. I don't care. I like trees, air I can't see, clear water and stuff like that. I don't like messes, so I don't care for oil, PBCs, Cadmium, and those little plastic thingies Cokes used to come in. Fission is a disastrous mess, but it may be the best we've got for the moment.
Why don't I hear environmentalists talking like that? Why do they all just want to tax stuff until we all live in mud huts?
Because those people are not Environmentalists. They are [ar15] Communists.
-
Another one has come to his senses:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion)
James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion
Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures
-
I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just gonna buy into the "man made" BS.
-
The same Patrick Moore who came out and said we ought to go nuclear. If he turns up as a three shot to the head suicide I would not be surprised.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html)
-
I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just NOT gonna buy into the "man made" BS.
FTFY. ;) =D
And agreed.
IIRC, the temp hasn't gone up in the last 15 years.
Oh, and we got 80 total inches of Man-Made Globular Woerming Climate Change this year. 231% of normal, during the 3rd coldest winter on record (150+/- a couple of years).
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/record-breaking-cold-winter-we/24831365
-
I currently fall into the lukewarm camp. Not totally convinced one way or the other. Here is what I think I know, but the issue is so politicized its hard to separate the signal from the noise.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, and there is now more of it in the atmosphere, and that increase will cause some warming. Nobody really disputes that part. I think this is the 97% consensus part. But this is a little smoke and mirrors, because the CO2 forcing by itself is not significant in the long term.
The big deal is whether that little bit of warming causes major positive feedback from other systems, especially the all powerful water vapor cycles. This is the absolute most critical question. If the water vapor feedback is strongly positive, there will be lots of warming. If it is neutral, negative, or very slightly positive, the warming from CO2 alone is irrelevant. There are good arguments for and against positive feedback:
Against:
A strongly positive feedback is unstable, and the earth should have already over heated as the sun continues to increase output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox)
the data doesn't seem to support it (with increased warming, we are seeing drying out of the upper atmosphere via latest satellite data, rather than constant RH. this indicates negative feedback)
the warming has stopped for 10-17yrs now with dramatically increasing CO2
For:
some data shows constant RH with increasing temps
logical conclusions from physics supports positive feedback
the models support it (this is the weakest argument in support, to me)
-
I don't think your 2nd paragraph is accurate. I think there is dispute about if and how much warming is caused by CO2. I think I saw something that indicated atmospheric CO2 has already doubled in the last 100 years or less and any warming is debatable. I have also read two things that brought a good bit of doubt. First, CO2 only traps heat across a very narrow band of light frequency. Second, the total effect of further increasing CO2 drops off pretty fast. These facts came up some years ago on this board. There were some pretty lengthy discussions, some of which were egged on by certain members using alternate log ins. (I have no proof)
As far as the rest, given that the earth has been hotter and colder than it is now, I really really really doubt there are hidden amplifiers that will cause the earth's temp to go rocketing skyward. IMO, that sounds too much like someone wishing/ hoping it might still be true but they can't prove it. Haven't CO2 levels been higher than they are now too? Not sure on that one.
-
I currently fall into the lukewarm camp. Not totally convinced one way or the other. Here is what I think I know, but the issue is so politicized its hard to separate the signal from the noise.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming, and there is now more of it in the atmosphere, and that increase will cause some warming. Nobody really disputes that part. I think this is the 97% consensus part. But this is a little smoke and mirrors, because the CO2 forcing by itself is not significant in the long term.
The big deal is whether that little bit of warming causes major positive feedback from other systems, especially the all powerful water vapor cycles. This is the absolute most critical question. If the water vapor feedback is strongly positive, there will be lots of warming. If it is neutral, negative, or very slightly positive, the warming from CO2 alone is irrelevant. There are good arguments for and against positive feedback:
Against:
A strongly positive feedback is unstable, and the earth should have already over heated as the sun continues to increase output. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox)
the data doesn't seem to support it (with increased warming, we are seeing drying out of the upper atmosphere via latest satellite data, rather than constant RH. this indicates negative feedback)
the warming has stopped for 10-17yrs now with dramatically increasing CO2
For:
some data shows constant RH with increasing temps
logical conclusions from physics supports positive feedback
the models support it (this is the weakest argument in support, to me)
1. Solar output has not been increasing, in fact it has been decreasing. (Solar observers are somewhat baffled by the declining output, it doesn't follow the models or the previous Solar cycles.) In fact, observed Sunspots are at the same levels as during the Maunder Minimum. aka: "The Little Ice Age". In fact if we take this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg and overlay it over tempeture charts like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1996_SAR_Figure_3.20.png they are pretty damn close to being the same. Yet, I've have numerous AGW believers tell me that "the sun has nothing to do with climate", with a straight face.
2. Name one positive feedback loop in nature. Go ahead. I'll wait...
-
I'm more than willing to accept that the earth's climate is changing. Just like it has done for billions of years.
I'm just gonna buy into the "man made" BS.
You are?
How much are you going to pay to buy in? I hope you're getting a bargain price.
-
It's very simple. As noted in a previous post (or ten), the problem is the sample size. Pick the right window to cherry pick your data and you can support any hypothesis you choose.
Just remember: Around 900 A.D. the Vikings established an agrarian society on Greenland. That society lasted about 500 years (that's longer than white Europeans have inhabited North America) ... until approximately 1400 A.D. at which time it became too cold for the agrarian society to continue, so they abandoned Greenland.
It ain't warm enough yet to start farming Greenland, so IMHO we're still just in a cyclical swing. When it gets too HOT to farm Greenland, maybe then we can start talking about global warming.
-
They've got to have a crisis that money , taxes, deprivation will cure in order to exercise control. They missed their window. They tried to do the same thing they did with Freon, act now & claim credit if there's a change for the better. Had they gotten their way ten, fifteen years ago they'd be claiming lack of increase & lower temps are due to their actions. I haven't heard anything about the ozone hole in years until I saw an article last week. Seems its back or never left it wasn't clear.
That science was never proved. They couldn't even duplicate it once but we had to act NOW!!!
-
I will also say again that I remember reading about Global Warming in elementary school in the 80's. They had no proof then at all, but there were researchers who already "beleived" it. IMO, if you already KNOW where you will end up, all paths will lead there (in your own mind at least).
-
1. Solar output has not been increasing, in fact it has been decreasing. (Solar observers are somewhat baffled by the declining output, it doesn't follow the models or the previous Solar cycles.) In fact, observed Sunspots are at the same levels as during the Maunder Minimum. aka: "The Little Ice Age". In fact if we take this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg and overlay it over tempeture charts like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_1996_SAR_Figure_3.20.png they are pretty damn close to being the same. Yet, I've have numerous AGW believers tell me that "the sun has nothing to do with climate", with a straight face.
2. Name one positive feedback loop in nature. Go ahead. I'll wait...
1 - Supposedly, the solar intensity has been increasing over millions of years, rather than relatively short human existence.
2 - Forest fire / prairie grass fire. One small fire dries out and heats the area around it, which dries out and heats the area around it, it gets bigger and bigger until the potential fuel is consumed. The initial growth of the fire is positive feedback.
I'm not sure why you are attacking the points that damage the AGW argument...
-
They've got to have a crisis that money , taxes, deprivation will cure in order to exercise control. They missed their window. They tried to do the same thing they did with Freon, act now & claim credit if there's a change for the better. Had they gotten their way ten, fifteen years ago they'd be claiming lack of increase & lower temps are due to their actions. I haven't heard anything about the ozone hole in years until I saw an article last week. Seems its back or never left it wasn't clear.
That science was never proved. They couldn't even duplicate it once but we had to act NOW!!!
The "ozone hole" shows up for about two weeks every year at the tail end of Antarctic winter when the temps are coldest inside the polar vortex. Ozone simply breaks down when the temps get below -200, it has nothing to do with CFC's. I remember reading a study on it from right after WW2, and it was before CFC's even existed. It's back to normal once everything warms up a little.
-
Quick resurrect to link Moore's youtube vid on the subject.
https://youtu.be/RkdbSxyXftc
Spread far. Spread wide. Should be good for a few GWA heads going essplody.
Brad
-
I will also say again that I remember reading about Global Warming in elementary school in the 80's. They had no proof then at all, but there were researchers who already "beleived" it.
Wasn't it also in the 80s that there was a huge, alarmist hue and cry about the advent of a new ice age? I distinctly remember seeing a trailer for a movie based on that premise. I can't remember the name of the movie, but in the trailer there was a scene in which people were walking outdoors and one of them cautions the others not to touch a bare metal handrail or their skin would freeze to the .... oops, too late.
-
Wasn't it also in the 80s that there was a huge, alarmist hue and cry about the advent of a new ice age? I distinctly remember seeing a trailer for a movie based on that premise. I can't remember the name of the movie, but in the trailer there was a scene in which people were walking outdoors and one of them cautions the others not to touch a bare metal handrail or their skin would freeze to the .... oops, too late.
They have to change it every few years when their claims end up being bs.
Hence it's no longer global cooling it's global warming er climate changy! Yes yes climate changy! If it's just "change" you can't be wrong! Wait....it's not changed for the last couple decades? Er....right wing conspiracy why do you hate Gaia!
-
Wasn't it also in the 80s that there was a huge, alarmist hue and cry about the advent of a new ice age?
That was late 60's early 70's. About the same time as the Freon (non) induced ozone hole. That started with just spray cans and changed the refrigeration industry.
By the 80's coastal cities would be under water in TEN YEARS!!!. The 90's cities under water in TEN TO FIFTEEN YEARS!!! 2000- ALMOST TOO LATE TO TURN BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2010 Uhh cooling?
-
Apparently globular climate warming change contributes to thread necromancy.
-
Apparently globular climate warming change contributes to thread necromancy.
I didn't know it would do that!! Come take my money!!
-
I didn't know it would do that!! Come take my money!!
I will be right down, let me hop into my private jet to get there.
-
Moore on why he left Greenpeace:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60
-
Sounds more like Greenpeace left him ...