Mainstream climatologists were right after all (once again)

a reply to: Metallicus

They are also ignorant of the deep scientific evidence which shows the particular physical mechanism of this global-warming induced climate change, how it is distinguished from other hypothetical mechanisms [the paper being discussed is yet another in a long line of hundreds to thousands of such] and the evidence showing how this verified mechanism also comes from human influence.

Scientists just didn't pull it out of their posterior.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus
Didn't take you long to chime in. This has been discussed. We started hearing the term climate change instead of global warming when Bush Jr. took office. One if the reasons why the term climate change was used is so uninformed folks like yourself would essentially parrot exactly what you wrote.

Whatever subject he is uneducated on today he can be educated on tomorrow. But you'l still be a d*ck.

the climate was changing long before man showed up
just ask the dinosaurs

say, how bout that sun today....

did I mention my nifty ice fishing boots?
Dunlops - good to 40 below ( F or C) NO FELTS!

funny when i read about how MMGW advocates justify the fact that there is MORE ICE lasting longer then thier models predickt:
Its obvious they never had any real world ICE TIME atall

originally posted by: VoidHawk

There is an illusion among skeptics and pseudoskeptics that one or two apparent observations which go against the consensus assumption intrinsically prove the whole theory to be wrong.

No, there is an illusion among believers that skeptics dont do any research! They do!

Even after all these years, since the likes of Gore spouted that we'd all be under water or the atmosphere would burn, I look out my window - just like anyone else can no matter where they are, and I see a completely normal world with normal variable weather.

If you wanna stick fear into people post a thread about fracking!

Gore is a politician. He isn't a scientist. Stop thinking that what the politicians are saying about climate change is the same as what the scientists are saying.

a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

I've been posting on this site for a long time and sometimes notice trends. This is not the first time the said poster has quickly responded with a couple of sentences that are full of BS, yet are catchy enough for the unaware reader to agree. We can tell here on ATS that the comment was popular given the stars said poster received.

In my opinion, based on Metallicus's star count on a mindless dribble post(my opinion of course), versus the OP post shows we have a problem with what the average English reader thinks about the changing climate and how much man plays a role in the changing world. Pretty much all the scientists who study this appear to agree that 1) We are making great changes, 2) Perhaps we should change some habits to make a more sustainable planet.

I like the think the average person is more aware, and the star count here does not mean anything and the said poster is among a group of astro-turfers who invade online forums to influence public perception. I really do not know.

GO ahead call me a dick and continue to ignore the information we have available. It is frustrating that so many put their hand in the ground on this subject and then have the audacity to accuse those who actually study the climate phenomena of being ignorant or corrupt and manipulate the raw data to suit some 'agenda'. It is truly disheartening to read so many comments that give me the impression the average human just does NOT give a %)&*% about this planet and will either willfully are blindly try to smear what should be a good scientific discussion.

I will still run with the 'no temperature change for the last sixteen years' brigade, man made climate change does not fit with my world view, when New York has canoe races down wall street, I'll re-think.

I have just learned that Oxfordshire, in England, is having hailstone weather, two weeks to June, and hailstones???

a reply to: pikestaff

Oh ye of little weather knowledge. Florida can get hail storms too!

originally posted by: TonyS

Obviously only Republicans and other fools would discount Global Warming/Climate change. Thankfully, the world has taken notice and some are now arguing that Deniers should be subject to fines, ostracism and possible jail time. Man made Global climate change is too important to allow dissent and all dissenters should be made to pay for their heresy!

Thankfully, through the mechanisms of the Internet, those who are Deniers are being identified, cataloged and tracked and will be made to pay for their crimes against humanity.

Nice straw man there.

Why must you who disagree with the Global Warming/Climate Change continue to make straw man arguments, instead of bringing data to the table that supports your opinion?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

You did it, I even used your statement as a template. I just threw your statement back at you, are you "special?"

Cheers - Dave

I am very special

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk

There is an illusion among skeptics and pseudoskeptics that one or two apparent observations which go against the consensus assumption intrinsically prove the whole theory to be wrong.

No, there is an illusion among believers that skeptics dont do any research! They do!

Even after all these years, since the likes of Gore spouted that we'd all be under water or the atmosphere would burn, I look out my window - just like anyone else can no matter where they are, and I see a completely normal world with normal variable weather.

If you wanna stick fear into people post a thread about fracking!

Gore is a politician. He isn't a scientist. Stop thinking that what the politicians are saying about climate change is the same as what the scientists are saying.

Agreed.

And in any case, Gore never said that we'd all be underwater now or the atmosphere would burn. For the standards of politicians, he is on balance reasonably accurate, if you go by what he actually says and not words put into his mouth.

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: Danbones
the climate was changing long before man showed up
just ask the dinosaurs

say, how bout that sun today....

did I mention my nifty ice fishing boots?
Dunlops - good to 40 below ( F or C) NO FELTS!

funny when i read about how MMGW advocates justify the fact that there is MORE ICE lasting longer then thier models predickt:
Its obvious they never had any real world ICE TIME atall

Once again, all the silly and ignorant denier tropes all in one message. And they happen to be #1 and #2 on this very page of them.

www.skepticalscience.com...

the climate was changing long before man showed up
just ask the dinosaur

www.skepticalscience.com...

say, how bout that sun today....

www.skepticalscience.com...

did I mention my nifty ice fishing boots?
Dunlops - good to 40 below ( F or C) NO FELTS!

funny when i read about how MMGW advocates justify the fact that there is MORE ICE lasting longer then thier models predickt:

www.skepticalscience.com...

the theory that our activity is causing this planet to warm keeps on getting more political and tax invasive

Whether that's true or not has no bearing on the reality of global warming. Though I think deforestation and concrete have much more to do with it than carbon dioxide. People create a lot of heat whether it's body heat, motors or concrete soaking up heat and releasing it.

a reply to: CB328

You do realize that the reason deforestation is on the list of variables effecting climate change is because it depletes the available plant life that filters the carbon out of CO2 right? So deforestation coupled with excess CO2 emissions is a double whammy punch of awfulness.

a reply to: jrod

Where did you get idea I disagree with the Global Climate change agenda? I said just the opposite. Strawman, the Republicans? They oppose the agenda because they're all for the poluting big businesses who don't want to lose money behind necessary changes. Hardly "Strawmen".

a reply to: TonyS
It's tough to tell the difference from irony and someone's honest opinion at times online.

However your post was consistent with the typical strawman arguments that appear in the climate change threads.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Metallicus
Didn't take you long to chime in. This has been discussed. We started hearing the term climate change instead of global warming when Bush Jr. took office. One if the reasons why the term climate change was used is so uninformed folks like yourself would essentially parrot exactly what you wrote.

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

To claim that that human activity is not causing climate change is ignorant. Also the theory that our activity is causing this planet to warm keeps on getting stronger as we have more data available.

The US has taken strides to clean up our environment. However, the biggest polluters China and India have been given a pass until 2030. WHY! If the major offenders aren't held to a equal standard then our contribution will be for nothing.

Our government pushes green agendas for us to follow which hurts many industries to the benefit of China and India's markets. Then Al Gore invented the Chicago Carbon Exchange which turned out to be a national level scam. If successful it would have made him extremely wealthy. He does not practice what he preaches when he travels in a 30 million dollar jet that emits more carbon than 100 cars.

If the climate is changing as you say, then the government has made it seem very suspect by their actions. Strong arming the public isn't the way to convince anyone.

Did anyone hear the Obama speech at the Coast Guard Academy? I feel he is greatly deluded with saying the greatest threat to the US is climate change. Haven't we been steadily moving to clean up our pollution? Didn't he just spend $800 million on green energy companies in 2008? Didn't he move to restrict coal production and use in our coal fired power plants just last year? Didn't he just veto the oil pipeline from Canada? Hasn't he has moved to restrict FRACKING? Hasn't the EPA halted the oil exploration in northern Alaska? Hasn't the EPA cancelled oil exploration permits in the western US?

We are number three of the global greatest polluters. Why and who gave the number one and number two polluters a reprieve until 2030? Shouldn't they be leading the world clean-up not waiting for 15 years? Their reasoning is that China and India are developing industrial countries. Shouldn't they start with clean technology from the start with the help of the US?

If climate change is such a great crisis then shouldn't the US go to the United Nations and start the world navies start by cleaning up the world's oceans. There is so much plastic trash discarded by ships there is massive areas of floating plastics/trash. Then send the UN to plant trees in the rain forests. The UN has enough forces to kill the whole world but none to save it.

My recommendation to Mr. Obama is to start working on climate change like a worldwide clean-up. The direction he is taking seems more like he trying to damage the US economy rather than fix climate change. Just my 2 cents.

a reply to: buddah6

What is your point?

I see you some how think Obama is trying to damage the economy instead of trying to fix climate change. Not sure who that is related.

Also I am pretty sure the UN does not have an Army or any real forces.

The climate issue, the rising CO2, the rising CH4, the acidification of the ocean, overfishing, deforestation, the polluting of water sources, among others are all issues that we need to address and attempt to live in a more sustainable way in order to make the world a better place for our offspring.

We have an unsustainable economy based on fiat currency that is largely based on the oil trade. The oil industries have created a product that we have become dependent on, however the methods of extracting and then burning that oil is not sustainable and causes great harm to this planet.

I like to believe we are at a point in our evolution that we can end our dependence on oil and use our technology and ingenuity to move on to alternative and more sustainable methods of producing energy.

a reply to: jrod

I think oil is a lost cause. Liquid petroleum fuels are just too useful and every bit that can be economically extracted will be.

Concentrate on coal---mostly used for stationary generation---and then gas. For stationary generation there are many more options.

a reply to: jrod

Jrod, I'm from eastern Kentucky where the coal industry has been basically made non-existent by regulation. Rather than incorporate clean coal extraction techniques, the Obama administration issued fines that made any extraction economically unviable. Then the EPA issued clean air standards that would cost more than the coal-fired power plants could afford for the improvements. The EPA bragged that it would make the licensing of any new coal fired plants so expensive that it would be impossible to build.

My family were farmers and loggers. We learned early on to replant the trees we removed so we could harvest softwood trees every 20 years and hardwood trees every 40 years. You must be good stewards of the earth! If you remove the rain forests then replant them...that's all I'm saying. It only makes economical good sense to insure your future profits.

As for the UN having armies...it does! Who do think blue helmeted peacekeepers are? They are the militaries of the UN members. If all member of the UN would send one ship to clean up the oceans and start fining the offenders, we could make a good start in setting things right. Their armies could start replanting trees. I'm sure the seedlings would be donated for that use.

My suggestions were for them to use their assets in a more ecological manner if the climate is so critically ill.

As for China and India budding industries, wouldn't it make sense to incorporate clean technologies as their industries are built rather than making expensive changes 20 years from now.

a reply to: buddah6

You do realize the coal industry is quite dirty. The miners get paid peanuts, while the industry destroys the area where they mine, pollute the nearby waters, and when the mine no longer produces leave without cleaning up their mess.

The regulations are there for a reason. Not everyone is okay with destroy the environment for profit.

If the UN had an Army, then the USA would be kept in check. Instead the US is free invade whatever country they can take and there is nothing the UN has been able to do about it.