Liars and Deniers in India

[Goodman]

These guys are certainly not scientists. Their opinion doesn't mesh with those on the just side of things. So, by definition (since they don't agree with popular consensus), their work cannot be valid and they can not be properly termed scientists.
http://m.economictimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms

[tank_monkey]

These guys are certainly not scientists. Their opinion doesn't mesh with those on the just side of things. So, by definition (since they don't agree with popular consensus), their work cannot be valid and they can not be properly termed scientists.
http://m.economictimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms


LOVE it. But you're right. These scientists will be SMEARED, MOCKED or just IGNORED by the liberal media and their acolytes.

[alismith]

LOVE it. But you're right. These scientists will be SMEARED, MOCKED or just IGNORED by the liberal media and their acolytes.

The truth must not be allowed to get out or a lot of libs will lose their funding to carry on their quest to make man responsible for all the climate problems on earth.

What will they do if people start believing what's really happening?

They must stifle this at all costs.

[BISHOP]

"Hypothetically, even if man stopped industrial activity, stopped using cars and stopped using air-conditioners, monsoon patterns would still change," said Agnihotri."

Why do people ALWAYS mention air conditioners?
These things are a sealed unit. They don't use and then disperse freon. They only use electricity.


BISHOP

[Goodman]

"Hypothetically, even if man stopped industrial activity, stopped using cars and stopped using air-conditioners, monsoon patterns would still change," said Agnihotri."

Why do people ALWAYS mention air conditioners?
These things are a sealed unit. They don't use and then disperse freon. They only use electricity.


BISHOP
You have GOT to stop confusing things! They blow warm air outside and, of course, into the environment!!
It would be different if they blew warm air inside- no harm there.

[alismith]

You have GOT to stop confusing things! They blow warm air outside and, of course, into the environment!!
It would be different if they blew warm air inside- no harm there.

That's a great idea! Just turn the AC's around so they blow cold air outside and warm air inside. This would work great in the winter as it would slow down globull warming and still keep our houses warm.

This solution is so simple. No more globull warming. :thumbsup:

[5.56NATO]

And then we have this, with much historic precedent;

Russian Scientist: World Facing ‘Mini-Ice Age’ Rather Than Global Warming
The world will soon witness a "mini-ice age" rather than global warming, as solar output has been declining in recent years, a Russian scientist told RIA Novosti Friday.

ST. PETERSBURG, September 19 (RIA Novosti) - The world will soon witness a "mini-ice age" rather than global warming, as solar output has been declining in recent years, a Russian scientist told RIA Novosti Friday.

"During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past," said Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory.

According to Abdussamatov, our planet may enter what he calls "a mini-ice age" at the beginning of next year.

"The 'mini-ice age' is associated with a change in the power of solar output and has a quasi-period of some 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries, plus-minus 70 years," he told RIA Novosti.

He noted that the temperatures usually fall by about 1 -1.5°C during so-called mini-ice ages.
http://sputniknews.com/world/20140919/193093969.html

Has nothing to do with man and everything to do with the sun and its cycles.

See here for details of the last one;
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

[alismith]

And then we have this, with much historic precedent;

Russian Scientist: World Facing ‘Mini-Ice Age’ Rather Than Global Warming
The world will soon witness a "mini-ice age" rather than global warming, as solar output has been declining in recent years, a Russian scientist told RIA Novosti Friday.

ST. PETERSBURG, September 19 (RIA Novosti) - The world will soon witness a "mini-ice age" rather than global warming, as solar output has been declining in recent years, a Russian scientist told RIA Novosti Friday.

"During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past," said Habibullo Abdussamatov, an astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory.

According to Abdussamatov, our planet may enter what he calls "a mini-ice age" at the beginning of next year.

"The 'mini-ice age' is associated with a change in the power of solar output and has a quasi-period of some 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries, plus-minus 70 years," he told RIA Novosti.

He noted that the temperatures usually fall by about 1 -1.5°C during so-called mini-ice ages.
http://sputniknews.com/world/20140919/193093969.html

Has nothing to do with man and everything to do with the sun and its cycles.

See here for details of the last one;
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Hot damn! I just bought a snow blower this past summer, too.

Bring it on!!!!

[imanaknut]

So let me get this straight, a Russian is saying that the bright shiny think in the sky has a direct bearing on the temperature on this planet?

But King Barack said that we Americans were the reason for wild weather patterns, temperature changes and generally anything else. This of course in order to return us to the stone age under full federal rule.

[LAGC]

These guys are certainly not scientists. Their opinion doesn't mesh with those on the just side of things. So, by definition (since they don't agree with popular consensus), their work cannot be valid and they can not be properly termed scientists.
http://m.economictimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms

I love how there are conferences full of hundreds of scientists, and the right-wing media just happens to single out the extreme minority (2 people, really?) who happen to hold contrarian opinions, and focus on their views just to drum up "sensational" news.

"Oh but there's no consensus! There's SO much disagreement! Reputable news outlets say so!" :rolleyes:

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I love how there are conferences full of hundreds of scientists, and the right-wing media just happens to single out the extreme minority (2 people, really?) who happen to hold contrarian opinions, and focus on their views just to drum up "sensational" news.

"Oh but there's no consensus! There's SO much disagreement! Reputable news outlets say so!" :rolleyes: You global warming religion guys NEVER explain how it was hotter in other periods before man was here...... Sidestep. Everything they said is fact. It's been hotter and colder throughout the planets history.

[LAGC]

You global warming religion guys NEVER explain how it was hotter in other periods before man was here......

Don't you worry, my friend -- we're about to bust through all historical records:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png

You won't be able to use that excuse for very much longer.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

[ltorlo64]

The real end result of man caused global warming.


...The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. II Peter 3:10

[LAGC]

The real end result of man caused global warming.

II Peter 3:10

Are you suggesting God is causing global warming due to our "sins", or that global warming doesn't matter because in the end God will implement a "scorched earth" policy anyway? ;)

[ltorlo64]

That fire is the only way to cleanse this world from all the destruction man has caused. God will do the cleaning but it is in response to man's sinfulness and rebellion and the harm it has caused to creation.

[LAGC]

That fire is the only way to cleanse this world from all the destruction man has caused. God will do the cleaning but it is in response to man's sinfulness and rebellion and the harm it has caused to creation.

I don't know, we've done an awful lot of sinning and no sign of God's judgment yet. Seems like it took a lot less to piss God off in the olden days, which makes you wonder...

People have been claiming "last days" for quite awhile now, haven't they? It could be quite a while longer yet.

In the meantime, we still have to live here and eat...

[Goodman]

I love how there are conferences full of hundreds of scientists, and the right-wing media just happens to single out the extreme minority (2 people, really?) who happen to hold contrarian opinions, and focus on their views just to drum up "sensational" news.

"Oh but there's no consensus! There's SO much disagreement! Reputable news outlets say so!" :rolleyes:
Is that the conference ratio of opinion or just 3 random attendees? The article doesn't say, yet you assume. Not a good behavior trait (assumption) for a self-proclaimed scientist.
And, discredit the source at your peril. The Times is over 50 years old and only the WSJ surpasses it for readership in English language business publication.

[ltorlo64]

Recommend reading Matthew 24:4-25, Genesis 6-9, all of Revelation, Roman history, European history, history of the Civil War, history of WWII, etc. But if you are not going to read them and try to understand them but just write things that infer I a stupid, I would prefer you not respond at all as it will be useless.

[LAGC]

Is that the conference ratio of opinion or just 3 random attendees? The article doesn't say, yet you assume. Not a good behavior trait (assumption) for a self-proclaimed scientist.

Considering the absolute lack of climate change debunking studies coming out of India, yeah, I think its pretty safe to say they aren't that representative of Indian scientists overall.


And, discredit the source at your peril. The Times is over 50 years old and only the WSJ surpasses it for readership in English language business publication.

Dude, it's the fucking business press. No less biased than Forbes magazine when it comes to articles about climate change. Of course they are going to deny, deny, deny, if it threatens development interests.

Are you claiming the WALL STREET Journal is any better? Have you EVER seen a pro-AGW article from them, EVER?

Follow the money, my friend...

[LAGC]

Recommend reading Matthew 24:4-25, Genesis 6-9, all of Revelation, Roman history, European history, history of the Civil War, history of WWII, etc.

Yet...

http://www.edge.org/images/sp-Slide011.jpg

I am going to speak about what may the most important thing that has ever happened in human history. Violence has declined by dramatic degrees all over the world in many spheres of behavior: genocide, war, human sacrifice, torture, slavery, and the treatment of racial minorities, women, children, and animals.

http://edge.org/conversation/mc2011-history-violence-pinker

Despite a few remaining hot-spots around the world, humanity has never been more at peace.

If God is still pissed, He sure has a strange way of showing it. :oh:

[Goodman]

Considering the absolute lack of climate change debunking studies coming out of India, yeah, I think its pretty safe to say they aren't that representative of Indian scientists overall.
Assumption- i.e. Personal opinion.


Are you claiming the WALL STREET Journal is any better? Have you EVER seen a pro-AGW article from them, EVER?
Lack of positive support for one kind of bias proves opposing bias? You have a breakdown in your logic. Again, not a good trait for a scientist.


Follow the money, my friend...
Indeed. Let's start with research grants.

[ltorlo64]

I knew you would not read what I recommended and it is your refusal to gain knowledge and apply wisdom that prevents us from having useful discussions. Thanks for not even reading my entire post.


But if you are not going to read them and try to understand them but just write things that infer I a stupid, I would prefer you not respond at all as it will be useless.

Now I must be off.

[alismith]

Follow the money, my friend...

YES! There you have it! Follow the Global Warming money and find its source. Then, follow the GW money from the source to those who profit from it.

Bingo! It's called man-made global warming because man is behind it all (and I'm talking about the capitalistic money grabbers who see a fortune to be made by creating and spreading the whole myth of man-made global warming).

IF man is behind anything, it's the opportunity to make money without having to actually work for it. If you spread enough fear, people will, willingly, give you their money to make it go away. P.T. Barnum would be proud.

Yes, LAGC, FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[alismith]

Don't you worry, my friend -- we're about to bust through all historical records:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png

You won't be able to use that excuse for very much longer.

Uh, I hate to bring up this very minor point, but that chart only goes back 800,000 years. Where's the Mesozoic time period, or the Carboniferous Era? Those were periods of very high world temperatures and the Carboniferous had a much higher % of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to today. It was warm during those time periods, but humans weren't around to be blamed. I guess tree farts can be blamed to the high levels of CO2, aided by insect and amphibian farts.

Damn, smelly times, they were....

[LAGC]

Assumption- i.e. Personal opinion.

Google Scholar is your friend, my friend. Show them to me -- all these studies debunking global warming out of India. Where are they? After all, there's NO consensus, right?

:laugh:


Lack of positive support for one kind of bias proves opposing bias? You have a breakdown in your logic. Again, not a good trait for a scientist.

Dude, the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Fucking Murdoch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#News_Corporation_and_News_ Corp

His other holdings include: Fox News Channel, London's The Times, and the New York Post.

No bias there, right? ;)



Indeed. Let's start with research grants.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to secure a research grant for anything in science these days? Any idea at all?

It takes a lot more than a bunch of hot air, that's for damn sure.

Keep showing your contempt for the entire field of science, because is sure as hell ain't just climate scientists who depend on research grants to carry out their studies.

[LAGC]

Uh, I hate to bring up this very minor point, but that chart only goes back 800,000 years. Where's the Mesozoic time period, or the Carboniferous Era? Those were periods of very high world temperatures and the Carboniferous had a much higher % of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to today. It was warm during those time periods, but humans weren't around to be blamed.

That's only because in the solar system's earlier days there were massive meteor strikes which unleashed all sorts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I don't see any massive meteor strikes around today, do you? So why would we want to compare apples to oranges by going back any further than 800,000 years?

800,000 years is more than enough time to see the entire modern climate cycle, from peak high to peak low, play out over and over again.

And we're about to bust it wide open.

[Goodman]

Keep showing your contempt for the entire field of science, because is sure as hell ain't just climate scientists who depend on research grants to carry out their studies.
I'm not interested in producing studies that disprove something that has yet to be proven by traditional scientific method - - with proper controls. We've been down this road, the horse is glue. Like I've said, show me yours first.

Further, my contempt is for people who redefine something in the hopes the ignorant among us will buy their goods. You are selling opinion, not science.

[LAGC]

I'm not interested in producing studies that disprove something that has yet to be proven by traditional scientific method - - with proper controls. We've been down this road, the horse is glue. Like I've said, show me yours first.

No worries, bro. Between the Democrats taking back control of Congress in 2016 and Pope Francis issuing his encyclical against climate change in the near future, we'll have all the proper controls we need pretty soon:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing

Action is coming, that's for sure.

America can't do this alone. But we can certainly take the lead, along with China, and get this shit done! :thumbsup:

[alismith]

That's only because in the solar system's earlier days there were massive meteor strikes which unleashed all sorts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I don't see any massive meteor strikes around today, do you? So why would we want to compare apples to oranges by going back any further than 800,000 years?

800,000 years is more than enough time to see the entire modern climate cycle, from peak high to peak low, play out over and over again.

And we're about to bust it wide open.



This is a much more accurate chart showing the CO2 levels and temperatures for all those time periods that were full of, "massive meteor strikes which unleashed all sorts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere." With all that hell raining down on Earth from outer space, life just barely managed to hang on until humans came on the scene to chase those nasty old meteors off.

3499

Uh, you might want to look closely at the differences in CO2 levels between today and almost any other period in Earth's history.

During the early Carboniferous, CO2 levels were up to .35% compared to .04% today, then they leveled off to near-today's levels for the rest of the Carboniferous and Devonian Periods. Actually, during the Carboniferous Period, IF humans had been around, we would have found the climate and atmosphere fairly comfortable. Plus, there were 2 major ice sheets around the South Pole, too (for those who like cooler climes...)

At no other time, in all of Earth's history of life, did CO2 levels even come close to present-day levels...they were well above our current levels.

Only during two or three other times, in Earth's history, have the global temperatures been the same or lower than today's. All other times, the temps have been well above current levels. Of course, these high temps completely obliterated all life on Earth, as shown on the chart, right? Oh, wait.....damn, it doesn't show that.

3500

Your belief in the myth of man-made globull warming is nothing more than blind faith stubbornly adhered to in spite of facts showing the opposite. But, myth isn't based on facts and belief is based on nothing more than wishes.

I'm sure your faith is still in tact regardless of how facts don't support it.

[LAGC]

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate, as many scientific studies have shown.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

That's why you can't just compare modern climate with ancient climate, especially with all those meteor strikes happening, some of which blacked out the entire sky for many years causing global temperatures to drop even with the elevated CO2 levels, like the strike that probably took out the dinosaurs.

But it's not me you're arguing with. It's the entirety of the scientific literature.

Keep your head in the sand if you want, but I for one, stand with science and the growing consensus for action and change.

[skorpion]

It's all the caveman's fault! He started those pesky fires which warmed the temperature, brought an end to the ice age, and killed off all of the wholly mammoths.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Skeptical Science: "[W]e're all a bunch of leftists"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-were-all-bunch-of.html

In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled, "Political Compass" frequent Skeptical Science commentators and moderators took a political quiz revealing (much to their surprise) they all share the same left-wing political ideology,

"It's official, we're all a bunch of leftists" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], August 26, 2011

More shameless conspiracy theory from the ‘Skeptical Science’ smear quest team
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/05/more-shameless-conspiracy-theory-from-the-skeptical-science-smear-quest-team/

The cartoonist (John Cook, purveyor of the laughably named “Skeptical Science”) and the psychologist (Stephan Lewandowsky), the two rightmost people in the photo above, are working together again to smear anyone who has doubts about the severity of the global warming. If making up data for a fake correlation (they never polled any skeptics, only friends) to support the idea that climate skeptics deny the moon landing wasn’t enough, now they are going after HIV and AIDS conspiracy theory. Basically, they think because we reject their ability to perform actual statistical science (by polling a representative population of skeptics instead of friends who support their mindset) that we are now engaged in “counterfactual thinking”. I look at it as psychological projection on their part.

[alismith]

When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate, as many scientific studies have shown.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

That is a given. The sun is the source of Earth's heat.



That's why you can't just compare modern climate with ancient climate,

Uh, that's exactly how you find out IF our climate is changing. In order to see IF the climate is changing, IT MUST be compared to what it was doing prior to what it is doing now. And, comparing it to the climate Earth has had, during all of its history, is the BEST way to compare it. Just picking out a short period of 800,000 years isn't sufficient.


especially with all those meteor strikes happening, some of which blacked out the entire sky for many years causing global temperatures to drop even with the elevated CO2 levels, like the strike that probably took out the dinosaurs.

That would only account for a short period of time and not really be a trigger for dramatic, long term, climate change. Just a few months would have been enough to cause the dino extinction. Estimates have been given for that "darkness" lasting anywhere from 6 months to two years. Enough to cause a short-term dip in the chart, but still not enough to elicit a climate change.


But it's not me you're arguing with.

Uh, yes, it is. Most other people are able to see the forest in spite of the trees.


It's the entirety of the scientific literature.

I don't think this is accurate. I have no trouble finding all sorts of legitimate, scientific literature, written by scientists who have nothing to do with making money from the globull warming conspiracy, anywhere. Your myth isn't supported by everyone.



Keep your head in the sand if you want, but I for one, stand with science and the growing consensus for action and change.

Spoken like a true Obamaite...hope and change....action and change. Notice the similarity? Your religion and creed are the only thing that's truly transparent.

[skorpion]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/climate-change-alarmist-vs-skeptic.jpg?w=720&h=242

[LAGC]

http://www.forbes.com/

Business press.


http://www.populartechnology.net/

Personal blog.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Personal blog.

'Nuff said.

:conf44:

[skorpion]

Business press.



Personal blog.



Personal blog.

'Nuff said.

:conf44:
And your sources are so scholarly?

[LAGC]

That is a given. The sun is the source of Earth's heat.

Yet solar output has been down the past several years and we are still warming. 2014 is the hottest year on record yet.

There is clearly something at work here other than the sun.


Uh, that's exactly how you find out IF our climate is changing. In order to see IF the climate is changing, IT MUST be compared to what it was doing prior to what it is doing now. And, comparing it to the climate Earth has had, during all of its history, is the BEST way to compare it. Just picking out a short period of 800,000 years isn't sufficient.

No, you can only compare apples to apples. In order to do so, you need to eliminate all other variables. Random and frequent meteor strikes is a pretty big fucking variable that completely skews all data the further back you go.

The most sensible thing to do is to pick a large enough time frame where you have some stability in all other variables, and isolate your test variable.

800,000 years is plenty of time to see the very highest peaks and the very lowest troughs of the climate cycle, over and over again, without any major meteor impacts (or other unknown variables) skewing anything.


That would only account for a short period of time and not really be a trigger for dramatic, long term, climate change. Just a few months would have been enough to cause the dino extinction. Estimates have been given for that "darkness" lasting anywhere from 6 months to two years. Enough to cause a short-term dip in the chart, but still not enough to elicit a climate change.

Greenhouse gases linger quite a long time. And all it takes is successive regular meteor strikes (which were quite frequent back then, the further back you go) to keep levels elevated, before they could ever taper off.


I don't think this is accurate. I have no trouble finding all sorts of legitimate, scientific literature, written by scientists who have nothing to do with making money from the globull warming conspiracy, anywhere. Your myth isn't supported by everyone.

Do you doubt Google Scholar?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change

All it is is a search engine of scientific journals. Peer-reviewed, published scientific journals.

And when I look through them to see what actual scientists have to say on this topic, I don't see very much debate. Do you?

[LAGC]

And your sources are so scholarly?

Are these scholarly enough for you:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/

http://www.realclimate.org/

Or are all those scientists working for all those different scientific agencies really part of one MASSIVE conspiracy to deep six fossil fuels and somehow keep the white man down?

[alismith]

Yet solar output has been down the past several years and we are still warming. 2014 is the hottest year on record yet.

There is clearly something at work here other than the sun.

:thud:


No, you can only compare apples to apples. In order to do so, you need to eliminate all other variables. Random and frequent meteor strikes is a pretty big fucking variable that completely skews all data the further back you go.

:thud:


The most sensible thing to do is to pick a large enough time frame where you have some stability in all other variables, and isolate your test variable.

800,000 years is plenty of time to see the very highest peaks and the very lowest troughs of the climate cycle, over and over again, without any major meteor impacts (or other unknown variables) skewing anything.

:thud:


Greenhouse gases linger quite a long time. And all it takes is successive regular meteor strikes (which were quite frequent back then, the further back you go) to keep levels elevated, before they could ever taper off.

:thud:


Do you doubt Google Scholar?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change

All it is is a search engine of scientific journals. Peer-reviewed, published scientific journals.

And when I look through them to see what actual scientists have to say on this topic, I don't see very much debate. Do you?

:thud:

[LAGC]

*sigh*

(Where's that head-banging smiley when you need it?)

[skorpion]

Are these scholarly enough for you:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/

http://www.realclimate.org/Nope.

[LAGC]

Nope.

NASA up to their old tricks, "faking the moon landing" again and shit? ;)

[5.56NATO]

So let me get this straight, a Russian is saying that the bright shiny think in the sky has a direct bearing on the temperature on this planet?

But King Barack said that we Americans were the reason for wild weather patterns, temperature changes and generally anything else. This of course in order to return us to the stone age under full federal rule.

Oh not just 0bama but all who profit or wish to profit from carbon taxes.

3501

Wich is not lost on corrupt states;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-28/california-carbon-tax-would-be-first-at-the-gas-pump.html

[alismith]

*sigh*

(Where's that head-banging smiley when you need it?)

Right here.

:duh:

Amazing. You have no trouble finding insignificant, trivial, biased data to support your myth of man-made Globull Warming, but can't locate a smiley in a closed-in box...

I am in awe of your outstanding Internet search abilities....

:the-man:

[blacksheep]

I love how there are conferences full of hundreds of scientists, and the right-wing media just happens to single out the extreme minority (2 people, really?) who happen to hold contrarian opinions, and focus on their views just to drum up "sensational" news.

"Oh but there's no consensus! There's SO much disagreement! Reputable news outlets say so!" :rolleyes:

Email-gate now sit down and STFU you leftist tool.:whatever:

[Goodman]

Another reason for my skepticism regarding AGW is the shrill tone so many AGW proponents take. If it WERE clear and provable science the tone would be more sober and methodical when explaining the subject- IF it were clear and provable (reproducible??) science fact.

[LAGC]

Another reason for my skepticism regarding AGW is the shrill tone so many AGW proponents take. If it WERE clear and provable science the tone would be more sober and methodical when explaining the subject- IF it were clear and provable (reproducible??) science fact.

No, the problem is the science is actually quite complicated, as it is with many scientific subjects. That's why there are huge textbooks dedicated to each subject, and students spend years in school just to understand a few key concepts.

The problem is you have a bunch of ignorant spectators (and not just on this subject) who think science should be easily explainable in a few basic, digestible sound-bites that play well on the 24/7 T.V. news media circuits.

That's not how science works, especially when there is so much accumulated knowledge on so many subjects already so far. Novices need to leave the science to the professionals who study this shit for a living, and quit trying to pretend they understand more than they do.

You wouldn't tell a doctor how to operate on your heart, so quit trying to tell politicians how to vote when it comes to scientists advising against polluting the environment.

[Goodman]

Really. We should let people who say we have to pass the bill to see what's in it decide this complicated shit for us? You're even more stupid than I had thought.

Edit: there are exceptions. Al Gore invented the Internet. He's clearly smart enough to decide this stuff for us.
Jesus. This country is doomed.

[LAGC]

Really. We should let people who say we have to pass the bill to see what's in it decide this complicated shit for us?

What are the deniers afraid of? After all, it's all bullshit right? So once we actually DO SOMETHING and finally start cutting global carbon emissions, according to the deniers, the planet should keep on warming up, right? After all, "it's just the sun" right? "Just part of the natural cycle?" "CO2 has nothing to do with it?"

You keep talking about wanting controls and seeing real experiments happen, well let's get it on, my friend. Let's quit pussy-footing around and get some REAL SCIENCE going, with a real life experiment on a planetary scale. After all, experiments are what science is all about.

Let's find out who is right and who is blowing hot air.

Let's settle this debate once and for all.

[skorpion]

NASA up to their old tricks, "faking the moon landing" again and shit? ;)Nope.
It's not that those .gov sites are necessarily bad sources. They're just one side of the issue. It's simply the fact that the climate is such a complex beast, and as a result, the information (and disinformation) that is out there is so chock-full of holes that it can be published to favor whatever viewpoint the author has on the matter. We all know where the .gov stands on the issue. According to them, we're all going to melt from cow farts.

[LAGC]

Nope.

Are there any other scientists employed by NASA who you think are "faking" it?

Perhaps all those rocket scientists working on their latest shuttle designs? After all, we're relying on Russia lately to take our astronauts up, so maybe they've been slacking at their jobs.

Maybe they've all just been twiddling their thumbs playing Solitaire on their computers all this time while all that research grant money keeps flowing in. ;)

[Goodman]

Where's your identical planet to compare as a SCIENTIFIC CONTROL?
Don't you get it? It can't be done!
All you have is a bunch of educated guesses and we don't even know for sure if we have taken all relevant factors into account!
It's GUESSES!
So if you want to economically cripple yourself in the faith of someone else's opinion, be my guest but don't expect me me to join with you until the smart people are smart enough to explain it in terms that make sense to me.
You're so caught up in what you are learning you think you actually grasp the world around you, but the fact is there are multiple orders of magnitude of knowledge we can't begin to fathom. So a few hairless apes grasp a few ideas and I'm supposed to assume it's the last word?
YOU can go down that path.
Don't presume to legislate that I should, because if people are smart enough to identify a problem, they need to be able to communicate it.

'It's too complicated for you' he says.

[LAGC]

Where's your identical planet to compare as a SCIENTIFIC CONTROL?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Finally, I was so waiting for you to finally get it.

Very good, my friend. That would indeed be what would be truly necessary for a proper control -- an identical planet, where we could truly rule all other variables out, and tweak with only the one we are trying to isolate and test.


Don't you get it? It can't be done!

All you have is a bunch of educated guesses and we don't even know for sure if we have taken all relevant factors into account!
It's GUESSES!

You're absolutely right. All we have is this one planet to work with, so that somewhat limits things. The models try to take into account all contributing factors, but there is still much we don't know for sure.

But you know what? The only way to learn is to TRY. To work with what we got, and carry out experiments to see what happens.

If indeed we curtail Greenhouse gases and the planet doesn't stop warming after a few years? Well, guess what? We can rule Greenhouse gases out then, can't we?

I'm ready to eat crow. All those climate scientists are ready to eat crow.

I mean, who knows? Maybe 100 years from now we'll find that it's Zigglywigglypuff particles from Alpha Centauri or something causing the warming?

But the only way we'll get to that point is if we rule all other possibilities out.

Let's rule CO2 out, my friend. Let's eliminate it from our list of possibilities.

Because that's the cool thing about science -- it loves proving things wrong. :)

And all that coal and oil and natural gas in the ground? It ain't going anywhere. We sure as fuck can ramp production back up just as quick as we shutter it down.

What do we have to lose by taking a "stab in the dark" and seeing just where the science leads? Short-term pain (slightly higher energy costs) is always worth the long-term gain (scientific knowledge, in this case) wouldn't you agree?

[N/A]

Ok, experiment #1, is to let things go as they are and see how this warming trend compares to all past warmings. Then, after we pass thru the next "ice" period and begin a new warming trend, then mankind can curtail CO2 emissions and at the end of that warming period, compare the two.

BTW, I was born 4 years after the end of World War II. I remember all the great and marvelous things the scientist told us we could accomplish with the new atom bombs and atomic energy. 99% hype. Less than 1% factual. I don't see anything different today. Most of this climate science is 99% hype and less than 1% hard facts. As you acknowledge, it is mostly conjecture.

Just like you , when you read or learn some new "variable", you bring it to the board and throw it in the pot as if you, yourself, are the only one on here with knowledge.

[Goodman]

Sweet Jesus this whole time I tried to lead the horse to water and now it's trying to explain IT was waiting for ME to drink.

By your admission then there IS no conclusive cause/effect study, nor will there be. Therefore scientific method is not in play. You are working with a series of guesses. So the question remains- who will sacrifice their standard of living (permanently, because there really is no going back with such things) to test your hypothesis. More, who is going to make fabulous fortunes and grab control of world populations (permanently, because liberty sacrificed rarely if ever returns).

[Goodman]

I really think you're full of shit on this. If that were the plan someone would have proposed a program, established a baseline and measurement standards. All we have is a proposal for a carbon tax. This is an opportunistic power grab.
Or, maybe aliens have shown our world leaders something g we aren't deemed ready to see and this is considered the best way to implement noble change.
Could be.....

[LAGC]

Ok, experiment #1, is to let things go as they are and see how this warming trend compares to all past warmings. Then, after we pass thru the next "ice" period and begin a new warming trend,

The problem is, we may not be around for the next "ice" period if we don't figure out what in the fuck is going on and soon.

As posted above: When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster.

If you have any other ideas as to what contributing factor(s) might be responsible for this current spate of rapid warming, feel free to spit them out. Otherwise, how about we try tweaking with the one variable that climate scientists think is most likely primarily responsible, for a change?


BTW, I was born 4 years after the end of World War II. I remember all the great and marvelous things the scientist told us we could accomplish with the new atom bombs and atomic energy. 99% hype. Less than 1% factual. I don't see anything different today.

Fuck, my friend. How could you be born back in 1949 and not be in total fucking awe of what science has accomplished so far just in your lifetime? The fucking Navy has WORKING prototype lasers and shit going on already. Why don't we wait and see what develops over the next 50 years before we write science off already? ;)


Just like you , when you read or learn some new "variable", you bring it to the board and throw it in the pot as if you, yourself, are the only one on here with knowledge.

Are you kidding me? I don't know jack shit about climate science.

:laugh:

All I know is enough to debunk most of the denier talking points I've heard pumped out by the right-wing think tanks.

But you know what? I sure as fuck don't claim I understand the science better than the actual scientists who study this shit do. I defer to their expertise and knowledge, and seriously consider what they have to say.

[N/A]

You lack the ability to grasp a simple idea. If scientist working with something as complicated as nuclear fusion and resultant consequences could not predict Ok 99% of the future with it, then how can science today working with infinitely more complicated variables predict what will happen with global warming?

It is not that I have a lack of appreciation or understanding of what science has given mankind...it's that you fail to see the limitation of science on this subject. As you said, it's all conjecture and a stab in the dark with them. You are so afraid of the future that you will accept any thing that promises you a little hoped for safety.

We are already in the midst of experiment #1 I mentioned, but you want to abort it and move on to experiment #2. Then I suppose you would want to compare the two halves of one thing and make a logical conclusion. You can't have an experiment going one way, stop it in the middle and introduce new variables to it to make an entirely different experiment, and think you can conclude what would have happened if the experiment was concluded as first started
It would just be a WAG on their part.

You are nothing more than your own form of religionist...blind faith in scientist just because they say so...but only those you agree with. The others, they just blasphemy the true gods.

Like a good commie, a useful idiot.

[skorpion]

NASA up to their old tricks, "faking the moon landing" again and shit? ;)
WTF, that's funny right there, because moon landings totally relate to globull warming. Apple, meet orange. And for the record, my observation that you posted a biased internet source does not mean I believe the moon landings were fake. The NASA "article" has no author listed and the information in it is just copied/pasted bull crap from a hodgepodge of globull warming alarmist sources for Pete's sake. Hell, the NASA article even quotes that bullshitted "97% of scientists agree" statement that was debunked a while ago.



Chapter 6 - Debate

Rule #157:
When debating about a controversial topic, make your opponent appear to the casual observer to not be of sound mind by misquoting him or her in a way that favors your viewpoint. This is known as the "straw man" technique.

Rule #163:
The use of "red herrings" is important during debate to confuse the audience, as well as to distract your opponent from the topic at hand. For example, you are in a debate regarding new gun legislation that is making its way through Congress, and your opponent makes the following statement: "I believe that access to more guns has equated to less crimes being committed." Utilizing a red herring, you counter-act this statement by saying: "So you are in support of making dangerous guns more accessible to innocent children?"

[1 Patriot-of-many]

No, the problem is the science is actually quite complicated, as it is with many scientific subjects. That's why there are huge textbooks dedicated to each subject, and students spend years in school just to understand a few key concepts.

The problem is you have a bunch of ignorant spectators (and not just on this subject) who think science should be easily explainable in a few basic, digestible sound-bites that play well on the 24/7 T.V. news media circuits.

That's not how science works, especially when there is so much accumulated knowledge on so many subjects already so far. Novices need to leave the science to the professionals who study this shit for a living, and quit trying to pretend they understand more than they do.

You wouldn't tell a doctor how to operate on your heart, so quit trying to tell politicians how to vote when it comes to scientists advising against polluting the environment. quite complicated? As in they need to manufacture data that fits the preconceived outcome? Or manufacture data since the real data doesn't show what they're saying?

[Goodman]

quite complicated? As in they need to manufacture data that fits the preconceived outcome? Or manufacture data since the real data doesn't show what they're saying?
Never mind all that. It's too complicated for you to understand. Dr. Science knows more than you, he has a degree in.......SCIENCE.
Do as you're told and be a good little sheep. Those who know what's best for us shall rise and save us from ourselves.

[ltorlo64]

Never mind all that. It's too complicated for you to understand. Dr. Science knows more than you, he is working on a degree in.......SCIENCE at a community college after dropping out of high school.
Do as you're told and be a good little sheep. Those who know what's best for us shall rise and save us from ourselves.

Fixed it for you to ensure pertinent facts are not lost.

[skorpion]

You wouldn't tell a doctor how to operate on your heart, so quit trying to tell politicians how to vote when it comes to scientists advising against polluting the environment.


...so quit trying to tell politicians how to vote...
Wow, that really says a lot about your viewpoint of the United States' Democratic Republic form of government. News flash: The whole "people trying to tell politicians how to vote" thing is how it's intended to work. Are you a North Korean migrant? And just to keep things clear, "people" is referring to the voters.


...scientists advising against polluting the environment.
Aha! And that right there, as you just revealed, is the agenda; the fuel for the man-made globull warming conspiracy theory. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to keep our environment reasonably clean, and I believe a majority would agree on that; environmental sterility is an obsession for a niche of people who take it to such an extreme that they wish to "ban" any thing or activity that even remotely poses the risk of causing some form of pollutant. I guess they never heard of forest fires, brush fires, volcanoes, sand storms, meteorites, or walnut rinds falling into a water source (poisons fish). Maybe all of those should be banned for the sake of the environment. Even further yet, there is a niche of people within the above niche that wish for the death of all humans for the sake of the planet.

[FunkyPertwee]

...so quit trying to tell politicians how to vote...

Useful idiot.