Obama mocks climate skeptics at LCV dinner

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: eriktheawful
And this is exactly what we are talking about: sarcasm, insults, ridiculing, belittling........ all those have no place.

All those things do is drive people away.

Some one offers me data to look at, proper scientific reading and civilized conversations, I'm all ears. I may or may not agree, but I sure will listen to them.

People that act like jerks though?

Nope. Sorry. Don't really want to hear what you have to say if you have to resort to that.

Being civil with people who flat-out ignore your reason and logic, then change attacks in order to uphold their beliefs - repeatedly and forever - gets old quickly.

It's far past time that there is a debate over if this is happening in the real world. Most of the people who refuse to accept man-made climate change have moved on to it not being mankind - accepting implicitly that it is happening and, instead, rejecting that it's us who are causing it.

There wouldnt be any deniers( well not many) if there was ever an actual debate about the science involved, and the source codes for their models was released.

Instead without there ever being any debate, it was announced by the goricle "the science is settled" and that has been the tag line ever since, all the while ignoring all the many logical questions asked. For example, how do we know we can trust your models? Let us see the source code to confirm you arent fudging the numbers.....nope cant do that, it would be proof either way, and this all relies on faith not facts.

Ok fine, why was C02 thousands of times higher in the dino days without any out of control warming? Nope nothing.

What about the fact that C02 is less than 1/10,000 of 1% of the atmosphere, and there is at present barely enough for plants to even conduct photosynthesis? Nothing but crickets

I mean I could go on all day.

The only forthcoming answers are as follows.

The science is settled.

Our models predict.

There is a concensus of all scientists.

Etc... to stupidity.

Are you waiting for them to come to you in person? The answers are readily available.. hell the source to many climate models is also readily available. Don't blame scientists for you waiting to be spoon fed.

CESM Models - CCSM3.0
Max Planck Institute - MPI-ESM
NOAA - GFDL CM2.X Coupled Climate Models
IPSL Climate Modelling Centre
METEO-FRANCE - CNRM-CM3

That took me about 2 minutes to compile. There are literally dozens of models with downloadable source as well as in depth documentation. Now what? Are you going to comb through the source a line at a time and dissect the methodology of the experiment?

Ok fine, why was C02 thousands of times higher in the dino days without any out of control warming? Nope nothing.

Who said CO² levels were "thousands of times higher" in the past? I've yet to see a credible estimate that was more than 6x what it is now. Out of control is a completely subjective term. How much change in a short period of time would you consider too much? From what I've read the estimated peak global mean surface air temperature during the Cretaceous (145–66 Ma) was about 20°F higher than now.

What about the fact that C02 is less than 1/10,000 of 1% of the atmosphere, and there is at present barely enough for plants to even conduct photosynthesis? Nothing but crickets

Barely enough CO² for photosynthesis according to who? That makes no sense. In 1950 the CO² levels were about 3/4 what they are now... and yet.. PLANTS?

The important thing to keep in mind here is that no matter what, the Earth itself will still be around and so will many many species. The question is what will the impact be on human civilization?

The information is out there if you're willing to do some digging of your own.

I was ready to listen to the climate change proponents many years ago until they started with the boiler room tactics of intimidation,insults and deceit.Now they can say the sky is blue and I would`nt believe them.They have fouled their own nest,a pox on their house.

The problem with deniers that many tend to hold faith based beliefs. So, no matter how much scientific evidence is shown, they simply will not believe it. The polar ice caps could melt, the sea levels could rise, the average global temperature could substantially increase and yet they would still deny global warming.

Frankly, they deserve as much ridicule as the anti vaccine folks, the chem trails folks, and the people that believe men walked with dinosaurs.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion

Nice try at trying to flip that around. My question is answered. I can name several PHDs that can verify the facts I present.

CO2 is at 400ppm and rising as a direct result of human activity.....

OK this is how science works fella, they make a claim, I say prove it, they then have to prove it, release all their source material so that I and all others can use it to try and reproduce their findings to verify their "facts".

Prove it is caused by man. Or prove it wouldnt be happening if we werent here.

They wont, because they cant, which is why their findings fall into the realm of belief, therefore religion not science.

Einstein didnt get to say the science is settled, he had to prove it, several times, and he didnt just get to say basically this will happen, he had to say exactly what would happen to the letter.

It was tested by his biggest naysayers by examining deflection of star light from its actual location to its visible location by the curvature of space time by the mass of the sun.

See this is how science works, you make a claim you prove it, you release all your findings and source material, we test it ourselves, we either see it is correct, or point out how it doesnt work.

I would have thought you knew this from your massive amount of scientific knowledge.

What were you saying again?

Matter of fact lets debate in the science forums, we will see who knows more. 2 minutes for each reply no copy paste.

I bet you cant find one single realm of science you know as much about in the basic sense as I know about in the expert sense.

We will have any mod you choose be the moderator, he will pose the questions at random at his discretion on any subject of science.

You game? I mean you said I am unqualified to make an oppinion, I am telling you I am.

Lets test our science knowledge against eachother.

a reply to: xuenchen

Demand an answer to a question that does not have an answer. Nice tactic!

Now when I do not provide an answer then you claim to win the 'debate' and everything is alright in the world of climate change. Save the guess work for the experts. This grade school debate tactics are not going to work on this forum. I try to pick my words carefully in these threads and do not mention global warming anywhere.

The 400ppm and rising CO2 count is accurate. To dispute this figure and the importance of CO2 in the atmosphere is unreasonable.

a reply to: oblvion

That is a lot of writing to say so little. I am well educated in science, clearly you must have skipped out on middle school science.

The 400ppm and rising CO2 levels are real numbers. CO2 plays a major role in this planet's climate. These are facts, not debatable points.

Keep living in the dark!

a reply to: oblvion

I'm with ya

originally posted by: Kaploink
The problem with deniers that many tend to hold faith based beliefs. So, no matter how much scientific evidence is shown, they simply will not believe it. The polar ice caps could melt, the sea levels could rise, the average global temperature could substantially increase and yet they would still deny global warming.

Frankly, they deserve as much ridicule as the anti vaccine folks, the chem trails folks, and the people that believe men walked with dinosaurs.

And that could mean many "Faith Based" people could believe the CO2 hoax is real.

But the big question is:

Where did the first egg come from that hatched the first chicken?



The bankers have a new "currency": CO2

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion

That is a lot of writing to say so little. I am well educated in science, clearly you must have skipped out on middle school science.

The 400ppm and rising CO2 levels are real numbers. CO2 plays a major role in this planet's climate. These are facts, not debatable points.

Keep living in the dark!

And of that number what percent is actually caused by mans activities? Do you know? I do. It is a fraction.

Almost all of that is from nature. Mans role is a side note.

No it doesnt, water vapor is way more potent, and way more plentiful. They dont talk about it at all because they cant regulate it, so there is no money in it for the goricle and his buddies. How about methane, also way more effective and way more abundant, but they dont talk about that either, because they cant regulate it, unless you count cow farts, so they cant make any money off of it.

Tell me, since al gore started all this, and he is soo worried about the environment and not the money, why is he so heavily invested in the carbon markets, why does he burn more fuel in trip in his personal jumbo jet in 1 trip than 20 of me in a life time, and not ever shut his lights off for earth day?

It is an easy answer, he knows it is all BS, and doesnt care.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: oblvion

I'm with ya

None of them will accept the challenge, because they know they dont actually know and understand science. They know they believe what they are told, and just keep spouting talking points, never addressing anything, or providing any of the proofs we ask for to answer our questions.

All the while ignoring one simple fact. Every hypothesis ever made save one, comes up front with an exact set of criteria that must be met under lab conditions, that can be reproduced by anyone, to prove it is true. If it falls short on any single point, the entire thing is scrapped.

What are the criteria to disprove AGW?

Wait I remeber, it is cold this winter it proves it, it is warm this winter it porves it, it is dry this summer it proves it, it is wet this summer it proves it, there are less hurricanes it proves it, there are more hurricanes it proves it.......are you seeing the same pattern here as I am?

a reply to: oblvion

Nice distraction again. This is not about water vapor, that is nothing but a distraction on your part because you have no logical way to rationalize the rising CO2 trend. Throwing Al Gore's name out there just shows you are grasping at straws. Do not try to tell me I know very little about science.

The CO2 count has gone from 280ppm to 400ppm as a result of our addiction to oil. We also are destroying forests which is a sink to CO2 and pollution does kill photo-plankton, another CO2 sink......

Keep living in the dark and keep up the grade school debate tactics. It is like you people think 'winning' a debate will solve the world's environmental problems.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion

Nice distraction again. This is not about water vapor, that is nothing but a distraction on your part because you have no logical way to rationalize the rising CO2 trend. Throwing Al Gore's name out there just shows you are grasping at straws. Do not try to tell me I know very little about science.

The CO2 count has gone from 280ppm to 400ppm as a result of our addiction to oil. We also are destroying forests which is a sink to CO2 and pollution does kill photo-plankton, another CO2 sink......

Keep living in the dark and keep up the grade school debate tactics. It is like you people think 'winning' a debate will solve the world's environmental problems.

Talking points talking points talking points........no substance, nothing but talking points.

I brought up the goricle because he is the father of this all and yet, he doesnt seem to care a bit, as I pointed out.

Water vapor does matter and so does methane, they are both far more abundant and far better at trapping heat than C02.

Your fixation with a barely existent trace gas compared to the ones with the highest concentrations, and pound for pound a bigger effect on the climate, just informs us all to your level of understanding on the subject you are trying to debate.

None.

Climate is effected by way more factors than C02.......I dont know why your beating this dead horse for.

It barely exists, most of it isnt because of us, it plays a minimal role in the climate.


You are doing nothing but repeating talking points.

You keep trying to say I am just trying to distract, when all I have done is give facts and evidence, you have done nothing but repeat the same couple of sentences.

It is tiring.

Look, I dont care either way, but do sothing worth my time here, like a single point, or anything but repeat the same tired old BS, or I will seek my entertainment else where.

You live in the dark ages of religious zealots all you want guy.

I am not religious, I hold no faiths, I believe what I can verify.

a reply to: oblvion

And of that number what percent is actually caused by mans activities? Do you know? I do. It is a fraction.

Almost all of that is from nature. Mans role is a side note.

No it doesnt, water vapor is way more potent, and way more plentiful. They dont talk about it at all because they cant regulate it, so there is no money in it for the goricle and his buddies. How about methane, also way more effective and way more abundant, but they dont talk about that either, because they cant regulate it, unless you count cow farts, so they cant make any money off of it.

Tell me, since al gore started all this, and he is soo worried about the environment and not the money, why is he so heavily invested in the carbon markets, why does he burn more fuel in trip in his personal jumbo jet in 1 trip than 20 of me in a life time, and not ever shut his lights off for earth day?

It is an easy answer, he knows it is all BS, and doesnt care.

Atmospheric concentrations of methane are currently about 1800 ppb (with a b) compared to carbon dioxide at about 400 ppm (with an m). Increases in water vapor are due to a positive feedback loop as opposed to carbon dioxide concentrations which have increased from burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide has a MUCH longer atmospheric lifetime than methane though lets be honest, human activities have likely led to an over two-fold increase in atmospheric concentrations of methane as well. However, the effect of the increase in carbon dioxide is responsible for about a 4x larger increase in radiative forcing.

Wtf cares what Al Gore says? Ever hear of Occidental Petroleum? The Gore family has made a ton of money off fossil fuels. That's your real problem, Al Gore. It's not the science, because the science is there and at no point in human history have people had anything approaching the access to scientific research results that they do now. You're choosing to ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist because you dislike Al Gore.

a reply to: oblvion

These are all points I have addressed at sometime during my decade + on ATS. You have yet to address the 400ppm CO2 count, just keep coming up with ways to re-direct the argument.

CO2 is significant because we are pumping it into the atmosphere, while destroying nature's CO2 sinks. CO2 plays a huge role on planetary climate.

Water Vapor is also a by product of combustion, the water vapor that is produced by combustion is 'recycled' in the water cycle. The CO2 that is produced accumulates.

No, you have not given and facts or evidence. Just straw man arguments and distractions. The only fact I have cited is the 400ppm and rising CO2 count, up from 280ppm. No need to cite my sources on those numbers.

I am done responding to you. Playing chess with an actual pigeon is much more satisfying.

originally posted by: Kaploink
The problem with deniers that many tend to hold faith based beliefs. So, no matter how much scientific evidence is shown, they simply will not believe it. The polar ice caps could melt, the sea levels could rise, the average global temperature could substantially increase and yet they would still deny global warming.

Frankly, they deserve as much ridicule as the anti vaccine folks, the chem trails folks, and the people that believe men walked with dinosaurs.

I am with you on the chemtrail thing, but please answer me this, have the polar ice caps ever melted before?

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: network dude

This kind of exemplifies my feelings on this whole subject. The folks who are pushing AGW are so damn smug and arrogant that even if everyone did buy into their theories, acting like twats will push many fence sitters away.

If someone wants to form their opinion on a scientific topic based off the attitudes of people who support it, I don't think that person's opinion is worth considering anyway.

To use someone's attitude as your basis for believing or not believing in a scientific topic is a pretty clear sign of ignorance.

Ah yes, a perfect example of the reason for the OP. Mum and Dad must be real proud.

a reply to: Kaploink

The polar ice caps could melt, the sea levels could rise, the average global temperature could substantially increase and yet they would still deny global warming.

Get with me when those things have happened, or just 1 of them to run outside the range of statistical variance and I may just take the people claiming to have the answers as having more than guesswork with better P.R..

Just my thoughts.

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: oblvion

That is a lot of writing to say so little. I am well educated in science, clearly you must have skipped out on middle school science.

The 400ppm and rising CO2 levels are real numbers. CO2 plays a major role in this planet's climate. These are facts, not debatable points.

Keep living in the dark!

And of that number what percent is actually caused by mans activities? Do you know? I do. It is a fraction.

Almost all of that is from nature. Mans role is a side note.

Again, this is experimentally FALSE, every bit as saying England is in the Southern Hemisphere and is going to win the World Cup.

Don't you think scientists actually checked the numbers first before saying something? They are not idiots like you think they are.

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were 280 ppm. They were a bit under 320 in 1960. They're now 400 ppm, and rising fast, and rate of rise is increasing.

So, over 54 years we've gotten 80/280 due to man. That's not a side note. It's going to be 600 soon. Why is the climate community talking about sensitivity to "CO2 doubling" so much? Because that's what's happening.

And yes, the isotopic analysis shows they're from fossil fuels. And if you count up the fossil fuels which have been burnt, the numbers would be even larger still, except that some of the carbon has gone into the ocean, causing acidification which causes its own problems.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: network dude

This kind of exemplifies my feelings on this whole subject. The folks who are pushing AGW are so damn smug and arrogant that even if everyone did buy into their theories, acting like twats will push many fence sitters away.

If someone wants to form their opinion on a scientific topic based off the attitudes of people who support it, I don't think that person's opinion is worth considering anyway.

To use someone's attitude as your basis for believing or not believing in a scientific topic is a pretty clear sign of ignorance.

Ah yes, a perfect example of the reason for the OP. Mum and Dad must be real proud.

Let me know if this conversation sounds logical.

Person A: Do you believe in man made climate change?
Person B: No!
Person A: Why Not?
Person B: Well I was on the fence about it, but then Obama made fun of some other people that didn't believe in man made climate change, so now I don't believe in it.


No one in their right mind would say that Person B has an intelligent thought process.

a reply to: oblvion

And of that number what percent is actually caused by mans activities? Do you know? I do. It is a fraction.

Actually, even that mere anthropogenic fraction cannot be truly determined due to fluxes that occur in nature, further deviating the currently assumed anthropogenic signal from the carbon isotope C13/C12 ratio.

The assumption is that only fossil fuel emissions shows a depleted C13 signal. But science is now learning that nature can also produce this same depleted ratio. Particularly temperature dependent oceanic uptakes and outgassing (aqueous and bicarbonate).

It's no longer just a simple matter of measuring naturally occuring CO2 with manmade emissions CO2, comparing the difference in depleted C13/C12 ratios, and calling it a day.

Science really does not have a clue exactly how much of the rising CO2 levels is caused from anthropogenic sources, at best they can only guesstimate based on their current limited isotope ratio assumption.