"22 Inconvenient Truths About Global Warming"

[rushmc 23]

Some things to consider and questions you may try and answer
Oh
this is on your favorite websight from Anthony Watts


and I fully expect the childish taunting agian Bill

Quote

Guest essay by Jean-Pierre Bardinet.

According to the official statements of the IPCC “Science is clear” and non-believers cannot be trusted.

Quick action is needed! For more than 30 years we have been told that we must act quickly and that after the next three or five years it will be too late (or even after the next 500 days according to the French Minister of foreign affairs speaking in 2014) and the Planet will be beyond salvation and become a frying pan -on fire- if we do not drastically reduce our emissions of CO2, at any cost, even at the cost of economic decline, ruin and misery.

But anyone with some scientific background who takes pains to study the topics at hand is quickly led to conclude that the arguments of the IPCC are inaccurate, for many reasons of which here is a non-exhaustive list.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 22 Inconvenient Truths
1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)

3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)

7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)

9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.

The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4) - Partly agree. Partly disagree. Asking a rhetorical question is silly. Temperature and energy are related but not expressed the same way.

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature? - there has commonly been accepted to be a flywheel mechanism to it. I'm convinced that all things being equal, more CO2 in atmosphere equals more heat. Data is also quite convincing that are things aren't equal.


3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9) - yes. I understand that. And if the atmosphere was a stadium, we'd have added 5 or 6 people to a capacity Rose Bowl.

4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10) - this is subject to a lot of debate. But I saw a video that shows how much CO2 varies seasonally. I think the thousand year stuff is hooey.

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12) - I've often thought (and been criticized) for my suggestion that there is an oscillation that hasn't been identified yet. The all things being unequal thing again.

6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14) - it is, until more CO2 is added. There is no upper bound to the saturation. Say you've got a pot half filled with soil. You saturate it with water so it can't hold any more. You solve that by adding soil. And voila it hold more water.


7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17) - dinosaurs were able to grow so damned big because it was so warm. They could devote their energy to growing instead of just staying warm. WE've had warmer temperatures and higher CO2. But we're at a different time in a different world.

8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18) - agreed. It's not accelerating. One can find regional differences.


9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20) - the hot spot is another issue so ridiculously trumped up by both sides that it's not even worth discussing. By either side. Look up lapse rate

10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22) - I think this is an interesting thing. It sorta runs counter to the lapse rate issue.

11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24) - discussed a lot

12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25) - agree

13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27) - agree. Most of the ocean we don't know much. We have no measurements

14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29) - go to saturation. Assuming his point about saturation is correct, you'd expect to see less LR capture and more albedo.

15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30) - this is a massive facepalm and where the suggestion is just plain wrong. The Stephan-Boltzman constant relates temperature to energy. It is there to relate on the outgoing side of the climate equation: (1) how efficiently the earth dissipates heat; and (2) the 4th power of the temperature of the earth-atmosphere system.

That constant doesn't care about the temperature of gases of liquids or solids in this context. IT's been used for generations in this study. This is where articles like this fuck it up for skeptics and make the conversation that much harder. Because those of us who have worked o get some idea of what's going on to understand it end up getting lumped in.

16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32) - correct. The gases heat and and maintain the heat. Thus the surface radiates more slowly and the heat is maintained. It SLOWS the radiation from the earth because it heats the atmosphere. Go outside on a cool clear night. Naked. You'll certainly feel the second law of thermodynamics at work. Then put on some clothes. You'll notice that heat transfer is muted, resulting in the temperature of the surface of the skin being warmer.

17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33) - this was true when humans were driving more CO2 into the air. It's a new game.

18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36) - yes. This requires more study in the "all things are not equal" department.

19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37) - Correct. Cloud formation is poorly understood and chaotic. It's one of the great mysteries for models. Science far from settled.

20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40) - this fucking guy doesn't even understand that models are not testable nor are they meant to be.

21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43) - no. IT's well stated.

22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups. - he is correct here. IT is a political entity with a political mission.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

There are some profound reply's in your post. the following is the more important IMO

Quote

he is correct here. IT is a political entity with a political mission.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Right. There's a lot of politics.

But mixing science and politics better get the damned science right. The science is wide open to attack and thus the politics aren't discussed.

This type of post does nothing but favors for alarmists.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

This type of post does nothing but favors for alarmists.

I do not agree

If they are allowed to push the science is settled bs unanswered, the politics will take over


One other thing
The question that pointed out that CO2 levels were higher as was heat in the past. You pointed out that you think that the dinosours got big because they did not need to heat themselves. But then you stated it is a different time different world. How so?
Same planet,
Same sun.

My point is one that says it has happened in the past without mans input
What is to say this is not the case today?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If they are allowed to push the science is settled bs unanswered, the politics will take over

I view it this way. Every economic activity affects the energy balance. OR at the very least ALMOST every economic activity. This means that any attempt to mitigate, change, limit or halt these activities creates a cost. This creates political maelstrom.

BEcause of the political nature of the science and its consequences, a culture of distortion exists with the issue. It is politics and therefore distortion is inevitable. Distortion is predictable. I'd venture to say that distortion is logical.

Distortion is countered with distortion. Then the distortion increases. This post is evidence of it.

Quote

You pointed out that you think that the dinosours got big because they did not need to heat themselves. But then you stated it is a different time different world. How so?

Because those dinosaurs are powering my SUV. All that carbon in the atmosphere sequestered itself. IT went underground and became coal and oil. We've brought that coal and oil up and reintroduced it into the biosphere. We are reintroducing that time of atmospheric makeup through human processes. It WILL have an effect. It IS having an effect and it has. All things being equal.

I'll pit it this way. Take a 250 pound man Then add a bee. A
What can a single bee do to a man? Kill him. If he is allergic to bee stings it does not take much at all to waste him.

We don't know the climate sensitivity. We've got a very broad range. I think observations are that people will be just fine with more CO2. But the effects will be there. Just not nearly so bad as has been predictably and logically distorted.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

Quote

If they are allowed to push the science is settled bs unanswered, the politics will take over

I view it this way. Every economic activity affects the energy balance. OR at the very least ALMOST every economic activity. This means that any attempt to mitigate, change, limit or halt these activities creates a cost. This creates political maelstrom.

BEcause of the political nature of the science and its consequences, a culture of distortion exists with the issue. It is politics and therefore distortion is inevitable. Distortion is predictable. I'd venture to say that distortion is logical.

Distortion is countered with distortion. Then the distortion increases. This post is evidence of it.

Quote

You pointed out that you think that the dinosours got big because they did not need to heat themselves. But then you stated it is a different time different world. How so?

Because those dinosaurs are powering my SUV. All that carbon in the atmosphere sequestered itself. IT went underground and became coal and oil. We've brought that coal and oil up and reintroduced it into the biosphere. We are reintroducing that time of atmospheric makeup through human processes. It WILL have an effect. It IS having an effect and it has. All things being equal.

I'll pit it this way. Take a 250 pound man Then add a bee. A
What can a single bee do to a man? Kill him. If he is allergic to bee stings it does not take much at all to waste him.

We don't know the climate sensitivity. We've got a very broad range. I think observations are that people will be just fine with more CO2. But the effects will be there. Just not nearly so bad as has been predictably and logically distorted.

Hmm
I had not thought of natural sequestration but it makes sense.
And to me, whether we know the whole science or not, predictions need to make sense!

The rest of your post makes sense too!
While I still do not fully agree, YOUR points are worth consideration.

And I agree that man will be just fine (as will the planet) in the end regardless.



Thanks for taking the time.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

So.. the news letter for this month just came out huh....

[lawrocket 3]

>>> predictions need to make sense

What predictions? Computer models aren't predictions. They are projections. They take what we know and make assumptions and work them out.

We do projections all the time. One of the more popular ones that people know about is fantasy football. People draft players with expectations. They put together a roster weekly based on what they project the player to do against a given team. The projection almost never works out exactly. Because who actually projects a receiver to blow out a knee? Or who assumes that the Kansas City Chiefs won't have a receiver with a touchdown all year?

Those fantasy lineups have projections. But there is a LOT of stuff that will happen. So they are simply samples.

Computer models are the same thing. They aren't testable. They are examples. They aren't supposed to be testable. They are also updated a lot because they can be used as teaching tools to see what we got wrong.

Predictions don't make sense because there aren't predictions being made. Just projections. There is a huge difference.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

I think the most common out look for the consideration of AGW is that the left wants it to be true, partly because the right doesn't want it to be true, and because it lets them have a sense of doing something useful, and the right doesn't want it to be true because it messes with their industrial way of life, and because the left wants it to be true.

The reality may lie somewhere in the middle.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

I very much want it to be untrue, but my desires aren't really important. I don't want it to be true, but it is.

People like rushmc, however, don't want it to be true, so they only listen to people who don't believe it is true. If they listened to all the evidence, they would have to face the fact that their desire for AGW to be a lie isn't going to pan out.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I very much want it to be untrue, but my desires aren't really important. I don't want it to be true, but it is.

People like rushmc, however, don't want it to be true, so they only listen to people who don't believe it is true. If they listened to all the evidence, they would have to face the fact that their desire for AGW to be a lie isn't going to pan out.

There are plenty of people who don't really want it to be true but sure hope to make a killing by preaching that fire and brimstone await.

There are finite resources in government budgets. A cure for cancer would be great but there is no control over the effects no my with that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

There are plenty of people who don't really want it to be true but sure hope to make a killing by preaching that fire and brimstone await.

Just like there are plenty of people who are making a killing convincing people to ignore the problem.

Quote

There are finite resources in government budgets. A cure for cancer would be great but there is no control over the effects no my with that.

You lost me. I think there's a typo there somewhere, but I can't parse it.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

I very much want it to be untrue, but my desires aren't really important. I don't want it to be true, but it is.

People like rushmc, however, don't want it to be true, so they only listen to people who don't believe it is true. If they listened to all the evidence, they would have to face the fact that their desire for AGW to be a lie isn't going to pan out.

I do not wnat it to be true????
Really?
You are that good of a mind reader?

If someone does not want something it must be you !

anyway
Just so some here know
The company I work for has reduced its carbon foot print 15% since 2005.
We are adding another wind farm starting this year
We are in the begining phases of working with the regulators to be involved with solar
A new gas fired generation plant will go on line next year which will further reduce the companies carbon foot print
Investors like our story and that is reflected in our stock value

So
the he does not want it to be true bull shit is just that , it is bull shit

IMO a worse case senario is spelled out very well by lawrocket

The only think related to not wanting something is you. Who does not want anyone else to be right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

And some people have far too much money that they buy politicians with to make sure that the "science" is not settled so deregulation.... ie.. quit fining us for all the pollution our corporation creates occurs... to the detriment of thousands of the idiots who believed "the message" their PAC put out so they voted for the bought and paid for politician that the billionaires want to do their bidding.... not the business of "We the People".

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

And some people have far too much money that they buy politicians with to make sure that the "science" is not settled so deregulation.... ie.. quit fining us for all the pollution our corporation creates occurs... to the detriment of thousands of the idiots who believed "the message" their PAC put out so they voted for the bought and paid for politician that the billionaires want to do their bidding.... not the business of "We the People".


Yep. it is "I the politician." AGW is a godsend for a politician that wants power and money.

For some reason people want to empower government event more to make the rich Richer and the poor poorer. It doesn't make sense to me. Politicians are bought and paid for. So let's give politicians even more power. That will make things better.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

Irony score high. You can turn it off, you know.

Quote

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

So, the Democrats are evil power grabbers using AGW to stick their little fingers into every aspect of private and public life, while the Republicans are white knights trying to save the world from this dastardly lie?

You're listening to rushmc too much.

- Dan G

[BIGUN 1,486]

First, I used to be on the global warming is bullshit path. But, not being a definitive left or right, black or white have been doing some layman research for about 10 years now. I think neither position needs to say right or wrong and stick their heads in the sand on that position, but work together towards a truth about the future. Newer technology from NASA provides more than predictions or projections; but evidence.

Quote

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.(1)

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.(2) Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.(3)

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

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 23]

BIGUN

First, I used to be on the global warming is bullshit path. But, not being a definitive left or right, black or white have been doing some layman research for about 10 years now. I think neither position needs to say right or wrong and stick their heads in the sand on that position, but work together towards a truth about the future. Newer technology from NASA provides more than predictions or projections; but evidence.

Agreed
And I was the oposite years ago
I believed man was going to destroy everthing for sure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

DanG

Quote

Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

Irony score high. You can turn it off, you know.

Quote

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

So, the Democrats are evil power grabbers using AGW to stick their little fingers into every aspect of private and public life, while the Republicans are white knights trying to save the world from this dastardly lie?

You're listening to rushmc too much.

I wouldn't expect you to take the black or white approach, but there you have it written above.

So now you are all, " if you aren't with us, you are against us" now, huh.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.(1)

See
this is one of those claims that they put out as automaticly true. Well, it is time to take a closer look.

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models

And the ice thing keeps popping up over and over

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/13/what-the-bbc-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-polar-ice/

So
Two of the claims make in your link are questioned
This then brings the claims into question for me.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

I wouldn't expect you to take the black or white approach, but there you have it written above.

So now you are all, " if you aren't with us, you are against us" now, huh

Um, no.

I was paraphrasing the logical conclusion of the position taken by lawrocket (and rushmc). They think that all the politicians who believe in AGW only want to extert control over the lives of the little people. By extension, the politicians who disbelieve AGW must be doing it out of an altruistic sense of keeping big bad government from growing out of control.

That position is hogwash.

Both sides have a broad spectrum of people, some of whom truly believe (or disbelieve) that there is a serious problem with AGW, and some who only care about their own bottom line. Most people fall in between.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

Yes. Autocorrect cam really suck.

Irony score high. You can turn it off, you know.

I really miss the blackberry keyboard. Really really miss it.

Quote

Quote

I wAs pointing out that curing cancer isn't helpful to a person who wants to seize political control. Global warming is just that perfect storm. Every economic activity has some effect. This means that every economic activity is fair game for regulation. Or deregulation if the price is right.

So, the Democrats are evil power grabbers using AGW to stick their little fingers into every aspect of private and public life, while the Republicans are white knights trying to save the world from this dastardly lie?

You're listening to rushmc too much.

No. GOP does it with different things. Terrorism, etc. Defense spending and economic control for that threat.

It is politics in general. Both sides loving Medicare and Social Security. Between GOP fearmongering and Democratic fearmongering there is pretty much full coverage. They are symbiotic is their parasitism.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Still citing studies that you don't understand, I see.

- Dan G