Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Energy & Environmental News and Discussions

climate change energy environment renewable energy nuclear energy fossil fuels fusion energy global warming sustainability solar energy

  • Please log in to reply
5620 replies to this topic

#61
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,963 posts
  • LocationLondon

Well, I guess I was wrong about having an open debate here on the global warming section.

What is there to debate?

Please use peer-reviewed facts and evidence, rather than childish exaggerations that you've invented yourself.

#62
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl
You won't except any of my links, articles, or facts as real science so there really is no debate. lolz.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#63
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

Roh, we're never going to agree on this since my source and your source display different amounts. And I bet you there will be 1000 other sources that don't agree either. But trust me when I say that last year was the damned most wettest year for New York. ACTUALLY, I'm convinced that 2011, this year, will be the wettest. It rained almost every day the entire summer. It's still raining and it's almost October! Every freakin' day, it rains. It rained today. It rained last night. I can't even mow my damn lawn. The mosquitoes are SO BAD this year.


I have no idea if that website supports Climate change.......

From the NASA website -

http://climate.nasa.....cfm#globalTemp

2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, globally.


Posted Image


CO2 levels are growing exponentially -

http://climate.nasa....s/index.cfm#co2


Posted Image


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4


We are clearly responsible for it -

http://www.skeptical...print.php?n=100


Posted Image


And there is mountains of evidence to show that the impacts will be devastating for life on Earth -

http://thinkprogress...arming-impacts/

There is a strong correlation between human industrial output and these multiple environmental impacts.
To deny evidence like this is just insanity, plain and simple - especially when there is such a strong consensus among researchers.

Why take the chance ??????

From the UK Met office.
Posted Image

http://wattsupwithth...nce/#more-47885
Posted Image
http://wattsupwithth...ury/#more-46794

I have more.

100% consensus among all major national and international science academies is good enough for me.

Local temperatures have very little relevance to overall climate change btw.



The 2007 IPCC Report represents the consensus
view of “2500 of the world’s top scientists”
• Were those 2500 asked if they support the conclusions?
• No.
• How many were involved writing the summary conclusions?
• About 30
• How many worked on Vol. 1 Chapter 9 (the key chapter)?
• Authors: 56
• Independent Reviewers: 17
• Government Reviewers: 8
• Canadian government review comments: 0
• Number of reviewers who specifically endorsed conclusions: 5
• % Rejected Comments, Ch 9, 2
nd
draft: 58.1%


The 2007 IPCC Report represents the consensus
view of “2500 of the world’s top scientists”
• Was the report re-written after the close of scientific review?
YES, 3 times. None of these re-writes went through scientific
review.
• Scientific review closed in June 2006
• Modified draft submitted to governments in October 2006
• New draft sent to governments in December 2006
• Summary for Policymakers written/published in February 2007
• Report draft re-written again between February and May 2007
• Published version: May 2007


The Royal Society/Meteorological
Society/Academy of Science etc. has
issued a statement supporting the idea
of anthropogenic global warming
• Was the statement put to a membership vote?
• No. None of them have been voted on.
• How many members would support the statement if
allowed to vote?
• There’s only one way to find out.


Only a handful of qualified scientists
disagree with the IPCC
• Has anyone actually done a survey?
• Yes: Bray and von Storch (2003) surveyed 530 climate
modelers around the world
• “To what extent is GW mostly caused by humans?”
• On scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) mean
response = 3.62
• Results “question [the claim] that the majority of scientists agree
with the IPCC”
http://dvsun3.gkss.d...KSS_2007_11.pdf

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#64
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI
There is no conspiracy amongst the world's scientists to hush up opposing views. Scientists can and are examining the role that the sun and water vapor and cosmic rays and volcanoes and Al Gore's jet have on our climate. They've found correlations between each of these. The sun can cause warming and cooling, so can water vapor and volcanoes, and even Al Gore's contrails. But so can carbon dioxide. That's what is important here. Just because the sun can cause cyclical warming and cooling or because Mt Pinatubo can cool the planet doesn't mean that carbon dioxide can't or doesn't. Carbon emissions (among other man-made emissions) are one of many contributing factors that have the ability to alter the planet's overall temperature and affect climate change.

The only real debate that might exist is by how much will an elevated level of carbon dioxide warm the planet, and how soon will the effect take place (scientists attempt to answer these through computer modeling and through data from ice cores and direct observations over the last 150 years), and the consensus that is emerging is that warming will continue at an accelerating pace as long as we keep pouring more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Low end estimates place warming in the range of 3 degrees C by the end of the century - that's globally, in places like the Arctic it will be much higher... high end estimates place warming around 7 degrees C. That is a wide gap, and is in many ways the difference between a livable world and a largely uninhabitable one.

To argue that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas is folly. It is. That much is settled. Now we're down to the details.
  • wjfox likes this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#65
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace


Really? Rain has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Global warming = more heat = more melting of ice = more water evaporating = more rain in the system.

Is it really that difficult to understand?


There might be evidence of this

There is overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence for this. As a simple example, just look at Venus.


that doesn't mean the world will get destroyed. It's a bit of a stretch to go from "elevated levels of C02 effects temperature" to Global Warming is going to kill us all in 20 years!!!!! Run for the Hills!!!!

Nobody is saying we're all going to die in 20 years. Where did you read that?



Is there a global increase in mean precipitation?

Venus has 25x the pressure and its atmosphere is like 97% GHGs. An increase from 0.0036 % to0.0072% is supposed to be deadly?

Did you watch Al Gores Climate Reality or the 4th Ipcc report which there will be 50m Climate refugees by 2010?

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#66
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace
I stand corrected. it wasn't Gore. It was TimesOnline.

http://www.timesonli...ticle723327.ece

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#67
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts

Your not getting what I am saying do you? These people that I mentioned were LAUGHED at in their faces for thinking about things the way they thought about things. If nobody gave them a change their ideas would have remained ideas. Just like what is happening to the experiments or scientists wanting to escape the norm today. It's all throughout history.

I called you a fucking idiot because:

1) You suggested that centuries old Mayan eschatology has the same amount of evidence as climate change. You also suggested that the reason people believe in climate change is the same reason why some people believe that the world will end December 21, 2012.
2) You reject peer review as an inseparable aspect of science.

#1 is utterly idiotic. You're comparing religion with science. Simple as that. I've explained again and again and again how the two are COMPLETELY different things, but you refuse to understand this. I tried to make my point by asking what the evidence was for Mayan eschatology but you ignored that.

#2 is just mind boggling. If you were in a room of scientists and you suggested #1, they would laugh their asses off at the stupidity of it. If you suggested #2, they would sit there with their mouths open. It is so incredibly stupid that they would be flabbergasted at how incredibly stupid you could be for thinking that. Frankly, I don't know what to say. My only explanation is that you don't understand what peer review is. You don't understand what science is. You refuse to learn and you just make up things and you accept them as fact because for whatever reason you CANNOT, no matter how many times we try, differentiate facts based on evidence and beliefs based on religious conviction. I want a psychologist to examine you to figure out why. I've never met anyone quite like you.

The people you mentioned were laughed at for coming up with revolutionary ideas that changed the norm. Then these ideas were peer reviewed.

Let's take for example Einstein. Einstein wrote about special and general relativity. They were initially rejected by most mainstream physicists as "lacking common sense." And then they were tested. And then they were tested some more. They were tested so many times and from so many different angles that scientists were forced to admit that they were right. They're still being tested. THAT is peer review. Every example you gave underwent peer review. Every piece of technology you use is based on science that was peer reviewed.

What do you believe? Do you believe someone comes up with something and then the science community accepts it if they like it? No. Independent researchers verify the findings. If the findings are true, then they will show up if the experiment is repeated.

There are several things that have been tested and tested and tested and tested and tested more times than you can count by many many many different independent scientists over long periods of time that they are considered fact. Evolution, the age of the Earth, the idea that the sun goes around the Earth, the idea that the Earth is round, and relativity are examples of this. Global warming is also an example of this.

The reason you don't believe in global warming is because you irrationally reject anything mainstream. It is a stupid ideology based on a conspiracy theorist mentality.

@Roh, once again my 100% consensus statement is based on: http://nationalacade...pi/06072005.pdf

Please don't bring fringe evidence into this. Especially when the think tank responsible refuses to divulge where 95% of its funding comes from.
  • wjfox and mic of orion like this

#68
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

@Roh, once again my 100% consensus statement is based on: http://nationalacade...pi/06072005.pdf

Please don't bring fringe evidence into this. Especially when the think tank responsible refuses to divulge where 95% of its funding comes from.


That statement came from this biased study

http://tigger.uic.ed...Doran_final.pdf

EDIT: Do you have any REAL proof that Ross's funding comes from an unknown source or big oil after 2009?

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#69
jjf3

jjf3

    Not a Member of the Tea Party! Just a Concerned Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • LocationHolmdel NJ/Tampa Fl


The people you mentioned were laughed at for coming up with revolutionary ideas that changed the norm. Then these ideas were peer reviewed.


Please don't bring fringe evidence into this. Especially when the think tank responsible refuses to divulge where 95% of its funding comes from.


I don't think you'll find any government agency willing to divulge how much money is actually spent in their department!!!!! Including your precious IPCC

Well then why not peer review other things that could be causing global warming instead of shutting down experiments before they get the chance to continue??? Why stop at the human reason? The sun has a huge impact on this climate and without the sun we wouldn't survive. The world won't be destroyed by global warming. We just need to figure out ways to protect those (in the coastal areas) from global warming and rising sea levels.

Oh wait nothing else CAN be tested because you people refuse to believe or think about other causes of global warming and not just humans.
"Did you really expect some utopian fantasy to rise from the ashes?" Thomas Zarek-- Battlestar Galactica.

#70
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,963 posts
  • LocationLondon

Well then why not peer review other means things that could be causing global warming

What an ingenious idea. Maybe you should contact the scientists and ask them to do that? I bet they'd really appreciate your suggestion - they never would've thought of doing something like that, would they?

#71
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

Well then why not peer review other things that could be causing global warming instead of shutting down experiments before they get the chance to continue???



Interested in a peer-reviewed paper that looks into the influence of the sun specifically... not a problem...

http://www.cgd.ucar...._additivity.pdf (From the Journal of Climate)

From the conclusion...


The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model if anthropogenic forcing (dominated by GHGs) is included, while the early twentieth-century warming requires the inclusion of natural forcings in the model (mostly solar).



In other words, warming has been going on throughout the 20th century, for the first half largely due to the sun, but for the second half largely due to greenhouse gases.

What else is there? How about one of these...
  • Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
  • Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
  • Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
  • Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
  • Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
  • Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
  • Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
  • Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
  • Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
  • Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
  • Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
  • Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
  • Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
  • Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
  • Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
  • Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
  • Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
What they all seem to be coming up with is that the sun was the dominant factor influencing terrestrial climate change until around 1970, and then our emissions that we've been slowly... well... emitting since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution enter the driver's seat and steer ongoing warming even as the sun enters a period of decline (hence the "global cooling" phenomenon of the mid-70s)
  • wjfox and mic of orion like this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#72
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

Well then why not peer review other things that could be causing global warming instead of shutting down experiments before they get the chance to continue???



Interested in a peer-reviewed paper that looks into the influence of the sun specifically... not a problem...

http://www.cgd.ucar...._additivity.pdf (From the Journal of Climate)

From the conclusion...


The late-twentieth-century warming can only be reproduced in the model if anthropogenic forcing (dominated by GHGs) is included, while the early twentieth-century warming requires the inclusion of natural forcings in the model (mostly solar).



In other words, warming has been going on throughout the 20th century, for the first half largely due to the sun, but for the second half largely due to greenhouse gases.

What else is there? How about one of these...
  • Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
  • Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
  • Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
  • Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
  • Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
  • Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
  • Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
  • Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
  • Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
  • Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
  • Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
  • Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
  • Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
  • Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
  • Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
  • Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
  • Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."
What they all seem to be coming up with is that the sun was the dominant factor influencing terrestrial climate change until around 1970, and then our emissions that we've been slowly... well... emitting since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution enter the driver's seat and steer ongoing warming even as the sun enters a period of decline (hence the "global cooling" phenomenon of the mid-70s)


There is more than just the sun. Anyone solely blaming the sun has no credibility in Climate science.

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#73
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace
I love how people discredit skeptics as funded by the Oil company while James Hansen has:

-Been arrested 3 times for unlawful civil disobdience
-Had the biggest pay raise than any skeptical scientist
- Counted as 'indepedant' as his job is supposed to provide an unbiased facts while he is a political activist.

http://biggovernment...t-james-hansen/

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#74
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

There is more than just the sun. Anyone solely blaming the sun has no credibility in Climate science.


Would you like other papers dealing with other potential sources of climate change? Methane eruptions? Volcanoes? Cosmic rays? Cloud albedo? Atmospheric dust? You name it... I'll do my best to find such a paper. I'm sure they exist, because all of these things have played a role in climate change historically, and will play a role in the future. The result will be the same. "Source X does have an effect, but that effect is negligible next to that of man-made greenhouse gases." The ultimate point is that the consensus among climate researchers is that anthropogenic climate change is going to be the dominant force warming the planet going forward as we go beyond 400PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It may trigger positive feedback loops which might have an even greater effect, such as released methane from the Siberian permafrost or decreased albedo due to a shrinking Arctic ice cap, but the greenhouse gases unleashed by man will be the primary root cause of these effects.
  • wjfox likes this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#75
Roh234

Roh234

    Capitalism is the only way to survive.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Location11 Dimentional Hyperspace

There is more than just the sun. Anyone solely blaming the sun has no credibility in Climate science.


Would you like other papers dealing with other potential sources of climate change? Methane eruptions? Volcanoes? Cosmic rays? Cloud albedo? Atmospheric dust? You name it... I'll do my best to find such a paper. I'm sure they exist, because all of these things have played a role in climate change historically, and will play a role in the future. The result will be the same. "Source X does have an effect, but that effect is negligible next to that of man-made greenhouse gases." The ultimate point is that the consensus among climate researchers is that anthropogenic climate change is going to be the dominant force warming the planet going forward as we go beyond 400PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It may trigger positive feedback loops which might have an even greater effect, such as released methane from the Siberian permafrost or decreased albedo due to a shrinking Arctic ice cap, but the greenhouse gases unleashed by man will be the primary root cause of these effects.


As the level of CO2 increases the effect it has decreases. I have a series of 900 papers that refute GHGs as the sole driver of Cliamte Change in the late 20th centuary.

EDIT: http://www.popularte...supporting.html

What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty. -Hans Hermann Hoppe


#76
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,963 posts
  • LocationLondon


As the level of CO2 increases the effect it has decreases. I have a series of 900 papers that refute GHGs as the sole driver of Cliamte Change in the late 20th centuary.

EDIT: http://www.popularte...supporting.html


I had a quick look at that site.

Among its sources, it quotes the "Petition Project" here, which is fraudulent and has been utterly debunked.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
  • mic of orion likes this

#77
Unrequited Lust

Unrequited Lust

    He Who Would Swallow God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts



The people you mentioned were laughed at for coming up with revolutionary ideas that changed the norm. Then these ideas were peer reviewed.


Please don't bring fringe evidence into this. Especially when the think tank responsible refuses to divulge where 95% of its funding comes from.


I don't think you'll find any government agency willing to divulge how much money is actually spent in their department!!!!! Including your precious IPCC

Well then why not peer review other things that could be causing global warming instead of shutting down experiments before they get the chance to continue??? Why stop at the human reason? The sun has a huge impact on this climate and without the sun we wouldn't survive. The world won't be destroyed by global warming. We just need to figure out ways to protect those (in the coastal areas) from global warming and rising sea levels.

Oh wait nothing else CAN be tested because you people refuse to believe or think about other causes of global warming and not just humans.

They have tested it dumbass. They spent decades testing alternate reasons. It's done. They have looked at it so thoroughly from so many different angles that they have deduced that global warming is real and is primarily caused by human activities beyond a reasonable doubt.

#78
truthiness

truthiness

    The Squire of Gothos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo MI

They have tested it dumbass.


Can we knock this stuff off? We've got overwhelming evidence on our side. Insults like these make it seem like we're trying to bully the opposing point of view into silence. The last thing we need to do is make a martyr out of the deniers. It only makes them stronger. Present the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.
  • Caiman and Zachemc2 like this
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one

#79
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
Yup. Unrequited Lust uses unnecessary namecalling yet again. Not cool.
  • Zachemc2 likes this
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#80
Caiman

Caiman

    Administratus Extremus

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

They have tested it dumbass.


Can we knock this stuff off? We've got overwhelming evidence on our side. Insults like these make it seem like we're trying to bully the opposing point of view into silence. The last thing we need to do is make a martyr out of the deniers. It only makes them stronger. Present the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I want to reiterate this, thanks truthiness.

Look guys, I really love reading some of the great debate and discussion you're all contributing around this site, we have quite a diverse membership, both culturally, politically and geographically- and that's a good thing. But bear it in mind, it's a forum... this is the internet. Every one here has shown that they are capable of criticising and de-constructing opposing beliefs and opinions without resorting to personal attacks and ad hominems, yet there has been more of that than I'd care to see and it needs to stop.

Do we need to set up a separate discussion about how this site is moderated, have we been too hands off? I'd rather not meddle with people's posts or chastise members for expressing themselves but it's growing tiresome seeing thread after thread blow up. Respect, let's have some for each other.
~Jon





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: climate change, energy, environment, renewable energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuels, fusion energy, global warming, sustainability, solar energy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users