How did this thread go almost an entire page with Mr. Cartoon posting again?

Did Tesoro cut off the $$ for his dis-information campaign?

Theories are right next to law, I think you meant hypothesis.

Oh, BTW, Professor* Lindzen's ideas against the magnitude of warming are much more sophisticated than the ones here. I would advise you to read them but ...

* yes, he is a highly educated scientist, so you'll have to dis-believe anything he says

All I've learned so far is how smart you are. Is this how science works? Insult and deflect until the argument goes away? Teach me professor.....

Good article, thank you for posting it.


Polar Vortex and Climate Change: Why Rush Limbaugh and Others Are Wrong - weather.com
Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent in November, 1978-2013
http://s.imwx.com/dru/2014/01/65c2a4...3f_650x366.jpg

I'd rather get information about climate change from a weather site than from Rush Limpballs, sorry folks.

There are other ways of determining weather and climate besides recorded history and weather stations. We have fossil records, tree rings and bubbles of air trapped in ice of which core samples are taken.

No kidding that we cannot do anything about past events, it's the future events we should be concerned with.

If a giant meteor were coming at us, do we throw up our hands and say "it's happened before - let's just go ahead die like the dinosaurs", or do we send out a nuke to deflect it's path?

I hope that ice melts faster, we need the water.

Good luck with that. I'll probably have a hell of a party. Actually, maybe not. I'll have been dead for years, anyway.

I understand the theories put forth about "climate change". It also seems to me that most of what we understand about the planet's climate is still in the theory stage and that there are a bunch of competing theories that attempt to explain various components of the overall explanation of what our climate has done in the past. Last I heard, there was no concensus yet.

The planet has at times been a giant snowball and at other times been completely ice-free. We haven't been around for any of those events, so I question how much of the current debate is really useful to us, or just bull**** from one group attempting to control the behavior of the rest of us.

Whether it's climate change, the nuclear energy question, whether or not we should eat tasty animals, or kill people that don't agree with our individual religion/vodoo beliefs or whatever, or let women drive cars, rest assured there will always be somebody that just can't get along with the program.

JR

I won't ever argue that we need to reduce human impact to the environment. We certainly aren't doing the Earth any favors. But I'm just not convinced that we are adversely impacting the natural cycle of the planet.

http://science1.nasa.gov/media/media...globaltemp.jpg

I guess you have had your ears closed then.

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Climate Change: Consensus
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/conte...mp_anomaly.jpg
97 freaking seven percent.

And somehow you are convinced that there is no consensus, utterly amazing.

And yet that chart you present comes from science, the very science you poo poo.

So much poo, and my shovel is only so large.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://climate.nasa.gov/assets/image...nasaBanner.gif

Anyone ever question the data?

What equipment was used?

Where was the data taken?

Are the users using the same method?

A glass-mercury thermometer in 1880 has the acccuracy of?

A modern digital thermometer with a high precision probe properly calibrated has an accuracy of?

Newsflash. I don't read with my ears. You might even say they are blind. I suggest you quit using your ears to read, as your reading comprehension is low.

Fer instance, your source says:

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

What I was saying was:

"...there are a bunch of competing theories that attempt to explain various components of the overall explanation of what our climate has done in the past. Last I heard, there was no concensus yet."

Those two things are not the same.

To simplify that for you, what I was saying is that we/they/you do not have a complete understanding of what has caused the variations in our climate over the past 4.5 billion years. We know that the climate has cooled at times and has warmed at other times. There are many theories as to why this is so. What is lacking is a single narrative as to precisely what happened and why. The greenhouse effect is just one of many theories that help to explain a part of it.

My point was that we don't understand everything there is to know about climate change. We do seem to be shouting a lot about one aspect of it. I don't think that we can predict precisely what will happen in the future of we don't fully understand the past, yet.

We like to think we know everything. Looking back, we've been wrong many times. I'm willing to go out on a limb and acknowledge that the world is round, and not flat. That seems to be safe at this point. Whether I believe all of the gloom and doom about the climate is still up in the air.

JR

I think extrapolating my focused statements here into saying that I doubt ALL science is a pretty big leap.

So now he's anti science? :rolleyes: This seems to be your style of debating. (Kach and a few others) Spout scientific theories as if you own the cornerstone of the scientific community. If one disagrees with them they are now anti-science. I thought this was isolated to the evolution thread but apparently I'm wrong.

I just find it amusing.... Some rehashed old news for you.


Founder of Weather Channel Denounces Climate Change Global Hoax - YouTube

What i want to know is what percentage does CO2 have an effect in comparison to things lite methane or water vapor and why we are concentrating on CO2 suddenly. I have no doubt that the climate changes but I am not sure we have nearly as much effect on it as some would have us believe. i think the "consensus" link is telling. 97% are think we are very likely responsible. Not absolutely sure? How about this, lets all get fuel cell cars and pump a bunch of excess water vapor in the air and see what the scientists say when CO2 is barely reduced since cars are such a small part of the total CO2 production and temps soar.

I am all for taking care of the earth. I think we should reduce waste, CO and NOx and a lot of the particulates for that matter.

Now this thread is what one could call the 'personification of a polemic'. Personalities aside, I am finding this quite informative as it contains some interesting thoughts & arguments. Good stuff guys.

Thanks & Cheers
JB

Global warming is not caused by humans putting excess CO2 and methane into the air, just like lung cancer is not caused by smoking.

So, clearly the individual human is responsible for this problem. Let's think of a knee jerk solution, shall we? The obvious answer is to go and shoot yourself. That would stop the breathing and farting that causes you to produce those foul gases.

Wait a minute... then you would decompose. That also produces the dreadful gases. So, you'd have to kill yourself, then not decompose. So, how about crawling in the freezer first. Yeah, that would work.

But, then someone will whine about keeping the freezer plugged in. Gotta be a fossil fuel burning somewhere to send juice down the wires. SO, we gotta freeze you somewhere else, where the cold wouldn't have to be created, it's just there naturally.

Okay, get on a plane to Antarctica. (Ignore the carbon emissions on the trip). That way, you can shoot yourself where you'd be a popsicle forever.

Nah, that won't work. Some busybody would dig up the carbon footprint left by the plane ride and you'd be outed.

God, this is so hard.

Okay, how about walking to Al Gore's house and shooting him? There'd be the exchange of breathing and farting vs. decomposing gas production, which could go either way, really, but he'd be dead, so you could turn off the electric and gas to his house. I've heard it's really big and uses a bunch of energy. Plus, he wouldn't do any more traveling, so there's all the savings from the burning of jet fuel. Of course, you'd probably also have to shoot his wife, too. Dunno if he has any kids or gardeners; you'll have to research that.

In case you don't live in his neighborhood, just get in your electric car to get there. That way all of your future gains won't be pissed down the drain on the way there. Just don't plug in anywhere. That juice makes bad gases somewhere up the line.

Sounds good.

Oh crap, I forgot about the cows. If they (the Gores, plus any gardeners) are gone, there will be less beef consumption and more cows. Cows are really bad, much worse than we are. You'll need to shoot a few of those on the trip and give them away to homeless people to eat, right now, before they can decompose. Tell them to cook the cow meat in a very bland way, so as to not induce undue belching and farting. At least tell them to hide any such things from view, so nobody shoots holes in our plan.

Maybe you can throw some tree and plant seeds out the window on the way up there, so future trees grow and absorb some of the nasty gas.

Hey, I got another idea. Teach the homeless dudes to light their farts from the cow eating and that way, the methane won't end up in the air. I've seen it on Youtube, so I know it can be done.

Gosh, this is complicated.

Best of luck to you,
JR

Who? Are you talking about "nuclear winter" or what?