I am all about getting off the grid using less legtricty super-insulating the new less than 100 sq ft home I am building, etc etc. However I despise a government powerful enough to attempt to force me to buy insurance and to use a lightbulb etc etc.So I get em' back every way possible. Well I try to balance the scales, I do not want to take more than what is mine. Just shrinking government would save more energy than anything. I am also pro nuke power. Its the safest method of major power generation we have ~ reva
You are an idealist. I was that once.It is a good way to view the world. The problem occurs when you try to hold a non idealists balls over the same fire that burns within you. Aint gonna happen. Also good fuzzy warm feelings will not feed or shelter us in times of real pain and suffering, and we know those feel good intentions will not protect us from the aggression and rabid desperation that is created in others that are starving to death*. The real world doesn't work that way. I can as as christian use the same tactic and say the world would be a paradise if everyone would follow the teachings of Jesus. It would be, but sadly we will not, have not, and probably never will. The only sure thing we have is ourselves and the ability we have to help others spiritually and other ways after the shtf. When I was about 18 years old my dad a tough old guy ex golden gloves surprised me when he told me he may not want to survive in a situation like I described above. I always looked up to him as a fighter and a survivor. So that comment kind of lessened my respect for him back then. Now decades later,...well, my My, how time changes things. I admire you more than ever for that statement! RIP dad. reva
Whether or not there is global warming due to human activity and how directly human action affects global temperatures is far more complex than the science that tries to describe it. Computer modeling is all over the board and that in itself calls into question the validity of climate science which like any science must be bolstered with reliable repeatability. Other disciplines like geology, archeology and anthropology clearly demonstrate that the Earth's climate has been changing all the way to pre history. History is replete with examples of great civilizations that ended up underwater long before fossil fuels.
But you have no grasp of any science so how would you know? - - - Updated - - - Yeah, I so nailed your character profile
Oh really? Is this a correlation, or isn't it? Is there anything here you can't verify, Rev? In other words, you're a conspiracy theorist who prefers to live in a pseudo-paranoiac world of your own making, rather than an objective observer capable of analyzing evidence. Got it. Hey, your conspiracy is way too small there, guy. You forgot all those Russian scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Chinese scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Australian scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Swedish scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Swiss scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Indian scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Israeli scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Pakistani scientists in the pay of Obama. And all those Egyptian scientists in the pay of Obama. Just one little question, cupcake: where did Obama get all that money to pay off all those thousands of non-American scientists? Because they sure aren't getting grants from the US government.
Climate change is the only possible way for the weather channel to increase its viewership or attempt to become culturally relevant, so of course they are supporting the theory.
Arguing an idea or a concept is best done dispassionately on the merits of a position without resort to ad hominem tactics. Otherwise a debater runs the risk of alienation, polarization and the erosion of persuasiveness. Attacking opposing viewpoints with accusations of stupidity seldom work well in any debate. This strategy nearly always causes the listener to ignore the accuser. Reputation is everything.
Many of the thermometers used to record temps are in areas that saw the growth of asphalt and concrete. Even been in a hot city and then left it for the country? Cooler in the country. So temps recorded near an urban area would go up as the city grew or grew up around the thermometer. Also, one can look at that chart and ask, did the warming which was caused by other factors increase co2 levels? And what effect did deforesting the world have upon co2 levels? There are many variables in the warming, with some of them we don't completely understand. Plus, the studies being done, financed, are only looking at co2. As if co2 was the only factor, which of course it isn't. Sometimes when you inject money, the money can get anything it wants, and yes, it can even corrupt science, or rather, scientists. For they must be fed, and have an income as well. I do think climate is changing. But I do not see the need for the hysteria, the draconian measures the hysterical want to impose. Climate change is natural, whether we are contributing to it or not. I find it absurd, the way the Left is thinking about it. The earth has had much greater levels of co2, and we are exponentially far off from pior levels, and it would take much more than fossil fuels to ever repeat those higher levels. I think the left is just going bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy, hysterical, and would easily treat the headache of a horse by chopping off his head to cure it.
OMFG. If only scientists had thought of that!! If only scientists had actually measured the difference between urban and rural areas, and taken that into account! If only scientists had quantified the Urban Heat Island effect decades ago, and removed it from the data so that what remains is pure climatological temperature rise! THEN the thermometer records would be trustworthy! If only climate deniers had started reading actual science decades ago, perhaps they would refrain from bringing up problems that were solved decades ago. But don't count on it. Yes, you can ask that. And yes, we can answer it. And yes, that question was asked and answered decades ago. Would you like to know what the answer is? Here's the answer: 100% of the rise in CO2 since 1800 is caused by burning fossil fuels. True. Utterly, totally false. It never ceases to amaze how climate deniers assume that climate scientists are exactly as smart as deniers themselves are. Believe it or not, climate scientists have already thought of that too, decades ago. And have already measured that, repeatedly, in many studies. Which is why we know that human activities (in total) are responsible for essentially all of the current warming (since mid-20th century), and that CO2 represents more than 70% of the human contribution. And that's exactly why everything you say is total crap, One Mind. Because YOU need to be fed too, and therefore YOU must be on somebody's payroll, and therefore YOU are corrupt and every thought in your head must be worthless. Thanks for pointing that out. The most rapid climate changes that geologists know about are when the Earth comes out of a glaciation stage, like the one that happened 12,000 years ago. During those times, that super-rapid change is about 3.5 degrees in about 2000 years, or .175 degrees per century. The current climate change that we humans are causing is ten times faster than the fastest known natural climate change. Which means that many species will not be able to evolve and adapt fast enough, and will die off. We're looking at massive ecosystem collapse. If you think that's not important, you must not do a lot of thinking about what you eat and where it comes from. Do you think the Pentagon is just going bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy too? Because they've been saying for a long time now that climate change is a bigger threat to our national security than terrorism is. Just another left-wing scare tactic?
Bad debater eh? LOL...really I agree! You as a self proclaimed (prob. auto-proclaimed, it's the only way its gonna happen) science guy/climate expert you should know CO2 is one of the weakest greenhouse gasses. Also I did not mention CO2, I said the I said its not possible to determine if global warming is occurring, however it is its impossible to determine if its because of the activities OF MAN or of nature. Nature produces a lot of CO2 and other much more powerful greenhouse gasses than CO2. I will admit that the (your) time line is suspicious, still there is no guarantee your data is showing CO2 generated by mans activities or natures CO2. Lets add this CO2 has little bearing on surface temps as shown by my graph and sources (below). Lets not forget that ; "Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm.*** " *cof* Lol.. It gets worse! Nearly every ice age is preceded by a SPIKE in CO2.... *** REAL SCIENCE http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/ Surface temp compared to atmospheric CO2 No, unlike you I rely on the data, unlike you who lowers himself to insult and bigotry when the date does not conform to what your handlers tell you. Lol, no those are your own little fabrications. The reason you did not see them in my post is because I don't believe them as true. But I will not insult you for feeling them as true. ? More fabrication from your or maybe your handlers world. Sorry I didn't say those things, you did. Again if you want to believe those claims, its your right....I wont belittle you for it, reva
OMFG! If you would source your hysterical rants (see above) perhaps your claims would not seem so overtly suspicious. reva ps ....pasted on your post..... The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial: 1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories Diethelm & Mckee 2009 Honesty is not on the list. POOR DEBATER YOU FORGOT TO SIGN YOUR LIST! (or source it)
What the defenders of the faith don't realize or refuse to admit is that the entire structure of research is corrupt. Money for research is hard to come by, the glamor diseases, heart, cancer, diabetes eat up the majority. In ecology the fight for $ is fierce, there is none for issues that are not urgent and critical, the urgent and important takes a back seat. The more dramatic the claim, the more likelihood of money, which of course includes fat salaries for all concerned. So the squeakiest, loudest wheel gets the money, thus we have predictions like bozo brain Al Gore that life on earth would be useless after 2014. If you, say, have some data that points to maybe another conclusion, or that maybe the predictions made are far, far less than made to date, you will suck (*)(*)(*)(*) in the wait to get $$$$, because the guys who made the predictions will immediately start screaming "denier!" as if its some faith [the morons have no idea what harm they did themselves coining that one]. Anyone, like my neighbor who raises questions about the collection of weather data in the USSR from the 1960's on, will get shouted down in public and accused of being in the employ of "big oil". And then there are the countless stories where PHD's were driven from their posts because the merely questioned the methods... So, in the department of spreading bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? The Warmist Priests are the ones with the most manure and the big catapults to heave it. DENIER! love it, just like the witch hunters in the middle ages; how long before we start driving stakes in the ground and chopping firewood?
Unable to provide a simple answer to a simple question, Rev drops right into name-calling mode. And this is exactly why you guys are losing this debate, and losing it badly: climate deniers can't even win against a poor debater. CO2 is responsible for 26% of the total greenhouse effect (and rising). So yes, it is significant, no matter how much you might pretend otherwise. One hundred percent of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 is man-made. So the CO2 axis on that graph is 100% anthropogenic. The recent rises in atmospheric methane and N2O are also man-made. Of course there is. We know from industrial records that human beings have dug up (or pumped up) and burned 365 billion tonnes of fossil carbon from 1750 through 2010. That's a number that is not in dispute by anyone that I know of. If you burn 365 billion tonnes of carbon, you get 1.33 trillion tonnes of CO2. Divide that by the total mass of the atmosphere and you get 259 ppm by mass, which is 171 ppm by volume. That's what we know we have added to the air. But when you look at ice core records, the atmospheric concentration did not rise by 171 ppmv between 1750 and 2010, it only rose by about 110 ppmv. So what happened to that other 61 ppmv that we know we added to the air? You can't just wave your magic wand and make hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 vanish. So it must have been absorbed by the natural world, by the oceans and the soils. Which means that the natural world is acting as a net sink for some of the CO2 that we produce. Which means that the natural world cannot also be acting as a net source for CO2. So your argument that "it's just a coincidence in timing" not only looks ridiculous on its face, it is also provably wrong. Again utterly false. How is it that the graph you posted ignores the increase in solar activity over the last 500 million years? Why is it that deniers cry "sun, sun" when it suits them, and then totally ignore the sun when it proves just how wrong they really are? False. Please provide a peer-reviewed source for that. I doubt that you can. In fact, I doubt that anyone who reads Steve Goddard's blog know how to find a peer-reviewed source for anything. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Again false. And again please provide a peer-reviewed source for that. So the guy who relies on data is unable to provide even a single peer-reviewed source to even a single datum. Brilliant. You're not relying on data, Rev. You're relying on fake expertise provided by fake experts. See Tactic #2 below. So you admit that those climate scientists in Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, and elsewhere, are NOT actually involved in a giant conspiracy? Then why don't you trust them?
Gallo, K. P., McNab, A. L., Karl, T. R., Brown, J. F., Hood, J. J., & Tarpley, J. D. (1993). The use of a vegetation index for assessment of the urban heat island effect. Remote Sensing, 14(11), 2223-2230. Gallo, K. P., McNab, A. L., Karl, T. R., Brown, J. F., Hood, J. J., & Tarpley, J. D. (1993). The use of NOAA AVHRR data for assessment of the urban heat island effect. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 32(5), 899-908. Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835. Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354. Jones, P. D., Trenberth, K., Ambenje, P., Bojariu, R., Easterling, D., Klein, T., ... & Zhai, P. (2007). Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 235-336. Weng, Q., Lu, D., & Schubring, J. (2004). Estimation of land surface temperaturevegetation abundance relationship for urban heat island studies. Remote sensing of Environment, 89(4), 467-483. ... and I've got more if you want them. It's right there for those who are able to read: Diethelm & Mckee 2009. The complete citation is: Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?. The European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2-4.
Not good enough! Anyone can copy and paste a hundred names and titles. You should tag each name with how it supports your specific claim. Keep it up that is a start. but don't let it happen again! Your cred is zero with me, mainly because of your attitude and your propensity for making off the cuff claims fabricating information. reva
Whereas your vapid partisan rhetoric comes sans any science backing...just a blog about a jourrnalist with no science degree in anything....oh yeah you sure know how to put forward an intelligent debate...not...
Are there Vikings in Greenland gaining 80% of their dietary protein from their grazing critters? They were just over 1,000 years ago. We aren't that warm, yet. I wonder what PeopleKind did back then to provoke the Medieval Climate Optimum? https://www.google.com/#q=Medieval+Climate+Optimum References, lots and lots of references Medieval Climate Optimum <boo, boo - hiss> deniers Moi r > g View attachment 31163
Yup. Moi is right. To quote Sept. 14 NY Post, "Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel. And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model. Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.” Consider:  According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded. Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.  Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.  A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
You asked me for references and I posted them. I asked you for references and you've got NOTHING. You just lost, cupcake. If you want to know how the references I posted support my argument, read them. Or don't they teach you how to read in Denierstan?
I was being sarcastic, you know, kidding around like you authored the piece? Also you should specify that most 'deniers' do not deny Global warming is occurring, but that if the earth is indeed warming we deny that it is man made phenomena. reva
No half baked I lost nothing. I did improve the forum by getting you to vet your claims in a legible manner. [/QUOTE] Back on topic, there is zero proof that man is effecting the climate. Maybe the weather but not the climate. Heating and cooling of the earth has been going on for milions of years with CO2 levels rising to levels much higher than today. The kicker is the times the CO2 level has been higher than today but it was during an ICE AGE. (see my prior posts here for sources). So what the data really shows is man has little or no effect on the heating and cooling process. The sun and other natural events etc are the main drivers of the earths temperature extremes. As a parting shot I am exceedingly happy conservatives* in US congress has enjoyed landslide victories in the past election. This bodes well for those of us with a brain in our head but bad for the naive bigoted idiots that believe every favorable to the UN etc report as it pertains to global warming. * Politically I am neither a conservative nor liberal etc. I vote the issues. reva
Great post. Of course the naiveatites' will find a little nit to pick then claim your entire post was created by the NSA or something equally dumb. reva
This explains the basis for man made global warming. Like everything in nature and the affairs of man there is nothing new under the sun. Have fun with it.
Forbes has a report for the past 17+ years. There has been no temperature increases nor have there been any sea levels rising because of melting glaciers. Oh, it uses the IPCC data, oops. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/
