Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[HempKat]

OK, then address the comments I made on the graph issues.

Also, tell me why the article published in Science Daily on the core samples doesn't completely debunk the entire AGW fraud?

Um because AGW doesn't draw it's conclusion from just one thing but rather looks at numberous indicators. If AGW is a fraud and your goal is to completely debunk it you'd have to prove every single thing they went by was wrong, not just the things that were the hardest to be 100% certain about.

 

[HempKat]

The satisfaction that I've turned someone else away from the dark side...into the light. I've broken their conditioning.

Okay show of hands here, how many did IBJamming actually break the conditioning of?

I'm betting he didn't even cause anyone to break a sweat let alone their conditioning.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

 

[Greensub]

Which Science Daily article are you refering to again?

I think you meant this one?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101203101622.htm

I think head already covered this one... It hardly proves or disproves anything on it's own.

Scientific theory isn't built like a house of cards, where if you pull out one card the whole thing falls (actually, a properly built house of cards can have a lot of cards pulled out before it falls down).

It's more like a Pyramid where if one thing collapses the rest stays if it's structurally sound. If it's not structurally sound... those parts will shift until it is structurally sound.

One block disintegrating doesn't knock down the top stone... You've got to have major structural damage to many many blocks to topple the top stone.

This finding on the Ice cores is just more data to be analyzed and correlated with the rest of the scientific record. Scientific theory isn't like the bible... (never changing) it's always evolving and changing. If this is going to cause changes in the modeling, it's a good thing. We'll know more about what's going on once the experts have time to digest it and figure out what it means relative to everything else we know.

 

[Greensub]

There you go again! Blinded by the light, of God and truth and right, as you wander in the night, without direction. So, you continue to continue, to pretend, that global warming will never end, and pot plants never bend, with the rainfall.

What are you... High???

 

[Greensub]

Hempy, you still don't get it?

Cause' you got nothing.

Just some empty right-wing rhetoric.

 

[HempKat]

Passing on costs to consumers pushes consumers to alternatives, which become increasingly viable as petrol prices rise... So though it would not hurt them much on day 1... the damage over time would be huge and would only ever increase.

I think the above process could better take place with education being the impetus for the shift in spending, but with the disinformation campaign the oil companies fund, it's hard to get people on the right page.
I'm not advocating a tax, but to think big oil is not profit scared would be naive imho.
All you have to do is look at the money they pour into denial think tanks and propaganda (which cost they also pass to us).

That's what makes me think they're not concerned about consumers. If Consumers are so close to the edge of what they can bare as to balk at an increase caused by a carbon tax then they would also balk at an increase caused by funding propaganda. They don't though because like it or not, for the vast majority of people there are not affordable options.

 

[HempKat]

There you go again! Blinded by the light, of God and truth and right, as you wander in the night, without direction. So, you continue to continue, to pretend, that global warming will never end, and pot plants never bend, with the rainfall.

I'll take that as yes, you are a hypocritical jackass.

 

[HempKat]

Oh, hempy! Winter will begin next week. It's still autumn.

I didn't say it was winter now you moron, try comprehending what you read before you comment. I said artic winds blast thru Europe and North America every year, about this time too. It's called Winter.

No where in there do I say it's winter now nor did I say that these artic winds only blow thru those places in winter.

 

[HempKat]

Hempy, you still don't get it?

No no I get it quite fine, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about and you only started this thread to amuse yourself by trying to get people fighting with one another.

 

[grapeman]

Its completely different. Neither H3ad, nor I, nor anyone else posting evidence of AGW uses Al Gore as a source of information. How many times have I had to say in this thread that I don't care about Al Gore, that he's not a scientist, and that AGW does not depend on him? 3, 4 times? You still don't see the difference?

Al gore or not, you post no evidence.

 

[Greensub]

Someone asked about the Senate Minority Report?

Someone asked about the Senate Minority Report?

“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”
After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:
• Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
• Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
• Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
• Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.
Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/new..._report_on_global_warming_not_credible_says_/

In this Senate Minority Report, almost 700 individuals with implied scientific credentials are offered as evidence that measures to address climate change are premature, and that further research is needed. Sen. Inhofe has used this report to support the claim that there is an ever-increasing international groundswell of scientific opposition to the position of approximately 2,000 scientists whose work is the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Science Report (IPCC) released in 2007. The Center for Inquiry maintains that the Senate Minority report fails to make a credible case that a large number of actual climate scientists take exception to the near-universal consensus of the research community.

Here's links to the report...

Download Credibility Project Resources

• One-page flyer describing the Credibility Project (PDF)
• Brochure detailing the background, results, and conclusions of the Credibility Project (PDF)
• Credentials of individuals cited in the senate minority report (PDF)
• Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming Science (PDF)

Spreadsheet evaluating the 687 alleged "dissenting scientists" referenced in the 2009 U.S. Senate Minority Report:

• Web version (PDF, original single-page column format)
• Printable version (PDF, for legal-size paper)

PDF copies of powerpoint presentations given by Credibility Project speakers:

• Robert Bindschadler (5.6 MB PDF)
• Stuart Jordan (4.2 MB PDF)
• Thomas O'Brien (3.7 MB PDF)

Good Read...

 

[ibjamming]

That is pretty close to exactly what happens.

Study oceanwide anoxic events. (here's a starting point http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000311/article.pdf)

When those occur, Large percentages of life (carbon) die off, and sink to the ocean floor where they do not decompose (from the absence of O2), but instead capture all that carbon in huge deposits which become oil.

It is like the earth has a built in carbon capture and storage system... unfortunately it involves mass extinctions and I like humanity not being extinct.


What we're doing is un-storing all that carbon, so that the earth has to do all that work over again.

So you admit it occurs NATURALLY and it isn't man made...and it WILL kill us all off. So, isn't it INSANE to TRY to STOP it? What we NEED to do is learn to LIVE WITH IT...or, just give up and party like it's 1999!

you admit yourself that it HAS and WILL happen again...so WHY are you trying to stop it? When you KNOW you can't...

The only response a science denier can make here--and in fact they commonly say this--is that universities and educational institutions in general are in on the conspiracy to deceive the public and promote NWO's plans, so of course anything in a university library is a lie.

Because inadvertently they are promoting lies. Some DO do it on purpose.

If it's "guesswork" to say it's true then it's also "guesswork" to say it's false. You're talking about trying to compare to a past that we have no way of measuring accurately, so yes we have to use guesswork with things like tree rings and ice core samples and the like. Guesswork because we have theories about what the rings tell us, or what the gases trapped in ice tells us but we're not absolutely certain our theories are correct. Such is the nature of science. If we learn our theories are incorrect then we adjust and move forward. Until such time as the theories fail us we must move forward as if they're correct.

The problem I have with your position is you've tried to imply that the goal of the AGW agenda is to pass things like "Cap and Trade" which is false. That's not what the people behind AGW want because that's just limiting the use of fossil fuels, not eliminating it. Cap and Trade is really just the government trying to find a way to look like it's addressing the problem without really hurting the businesses that are behind the lobbys that influence government and maybe make some tax revenue on the side. The people behind AGW would much rather we forego the use of fossil fuels altogether in favor of things like solar or nuclear power. If we did that there would be no need for carbon credits or cap and trade.

God Damn! You FINALLY got it...though it passed quickly...it's ALL guesswork. I'd rather not go broke and lose my car because someone has "guessed" that we're all going to die if we don't stop what we're doing.

Your theory HAS failed...well actually it's just REALLY early...we're at +4, we've been to +8 several times in history...it's NOT a PROBLEM yet!!!! Would you give me a speeding ticket for speeding on the highway is I was only doing 50MPH and the speed limit is 55??? So why is there a global warming PROBLEM when the global temperature still has 4 degrees to rise before it get's into territory that is higher than ever??? According to history e're just nearing the NATURAL temperature peak...let it peak and THEN see if it doesn't stop.

So that's what you REALLY want...stop using fossil fuels. Glad you FINALLY admitted it. So you're a fuel bigot. How does it feel to be "named"? Newsflash...we can't survve without oil...period...not as a modern society. so, in actuality...you just want us all to live like the "natives". Back to the 1800's? Sorry...you'll have to pry my oil from my cold dead hands...

No that won't work as big oil would just add any taxes against them, to the cost of their product and in the end the only one to suffer is the consumer who is already being ass raped left and right by every other greedy corporation beholding to shareholders.

Actually...your government is the one "ass raping" us. And passing cap and trade...what they REALLY want...is more of the same.

I think you meant this one?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101203101622.htm

I think head already covered this one... It hardly proves or disproves anything on it's own.

Scientific theory isn't built like a house of cards, where if you pull out one card the whole thing falls (actually, a properly built house of cards can have a lot of cards pulled out before it falls down).

It's more like a Pyramid where if one thing collapses the rest stays if it's structurally sound. If it's not structurally sound... those parts will shift until it is structurally sound.

One block disintegrating doesn't knock down the top stone... You've got to have major structural damage to many many blocks to topple the top stone.

This finding on the Ice cores is just more data to be analyzed and correlated with the rest of the scientific record. Scientific theory isn't like the bible... (never changing) it's always evolving and changing. If this is going to cause changes in the modeling, it's a good thing. We'll know more about what's going on once the experts have time to digest it and figure out what it means relative to everything else we know.

Some theories are built on a house of cards...but those are mostly the "soft" sciences...sociology, psychology...and the global warming "debate". Remember when the world was flat? The earth was the center of the universe? There ARE more... Science is a "snapshot" of current "best guesses". We still don't "know" anything.

What IS gravity? What IS time? IS there a creator? How does electromagnetism REALLY work? Global warming...is it real? We don't know! We don't KNOW much...we have a working knowledge of many things but in the end...it's STILL "fucking magic".

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Admit?
lmao... I'm not saying anything different than I've ever said... you need to catch up.

Once more, since you'd rather rant than read and discuss... I'm not concerned for the planet, I'm concerned for most of the life on the planet.

Duh. I've only consistently help the same position for about three years worth of AGW discussions here.

 

[KharmaGirl]

The Op has requested this thread be closed.