Quick! Make electronic bank transfers to developed countries and the climate will stop changing!
John Kerry blasts climate change deniers, 'shoddy scientists'
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Give til it hurts... Remember, you save the planet twice as fast when you donate to one of Gore or Suzuki's registered eco-repair shops!
Um. . . question. Why is it right and proper and good business and patriotic to try to bend the political agenda for your own benefit when you're an oil company, a weapons manufacturer, an auto maker, or a producer of GM seeds, but wrong and eeeee-vil and hypocritical to do the same thing when you're an environmentalist?
Well I don't think there's much doubt, even among skeptics, that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising measurably and steadily, and that the average global temperature over the last 100 years or so has increased. According to some pretty basic radiation physics, CO2 absorbs and reemits in the infrared spectrum, meaning that more CO2 will refelct more heat back to the surface of the earth, resulting in a hotter tropospehere and cooler stratosphere. And we know the increase in CO2 is around the same order of magnitude of CO2 emitted by humans.
So though I may be wrong, it's not ridiculous theory. It's certainly based on more than a "handful of datat points."
It's not "ironic" that I see you position as based in bitterness. It's just based on observation. Rather than debate the merits of the argument you choose to demonize David Suzuki, or Al Gore or whoever it is that you are really, really mad at that day. It doesn't matter if David Suzuki is an a**hole or note. It doesn't affect the merits of the theory.
Funny... Question: Do the oil co.s, arms mfgrs et al not get their feet held to the fire when they are caught in a lie?.. In fact, I believe that the word fraud is even bandied-about on those occasions.
In fact, if I recall correctly, hefty fines are allocated when that occurs
Great.. Seeing how you truthers have all the answers; any explanation to account for the multiple freeze - thaw cycles in the past?
You must know, right?.. You have models and everything... So, let's hear it
Speaking of lies. . . at the very best, your statement is a vast oversimplification. All of the above critters tell lies all the time. A few, extremely narrow classes of those lies violate the law. Very few. Very narrow.
You haven't answered the question... Are any of the groups you mentioned immune from being publicly held to account for such?
Why would a greenie organization be held to a different standard?... Fighting the good fight perhaps?
Why would a greenie organization be held to a different standard?... Fighting the good fight perhaps?
I did answer the question. Tell me how Al Gore's alleged lies violated the law, and I'll sign on to "publicly holding him to account," by the same standard as I hold oil companies, weapons mfgrs, banks, &c. to account.
Easy, there, pardner. All the snide crap you throw out ain't hiding the fact that you have yet to demonstrate that Gore violated the law, which is the standard YOU chose (companies being fined).
I've addressed it directly. I've said that Gore should be held to account in precisely the same fashion as any other actor in the commercial/political/social marketplace. Get back to me when you have evidence he's done or said anything actionable.
Initially, I commented that the deceiving entity had their feet held to the fire. I also was very careful to suggest that in relevant cases, fines and or legal action be undertaken as appropriate.
You got on this band wagon because I am holding Gore's feet to the fire, no differently than an arms mfgr or oil company when they are caught.
So, if you position is solely based on actionable circumstances, why did you wade into the fray to begin with?
PS: the proof on Gore was initially generated by what ever the high court in the UK is called
Who really gives a sh*t about this stuff and the scientific explanations? Just live sensibly, keep waste to an absolute minimum and reuse every thing you can and wherever you can substitute muscular energy for other energy, do it!
Not really, why should admitting you were wrong hurt? Though I guess I understand why you never admit when you're wrong now. Lol to stark reality, one poor model...has the stark reality hit you yet that there are in fact many predictions that have been true? I posted a small list of them, and all you could say is, yeah what about arctic sea ice? Try it, try saying, "Yeah, I guess I was wrong." It's not that hard.
Congratulations, Petros found one model, which is an outlier. The modeller in question revised his work after the rest of the ice modelling community criticized his work. I think it's probably still too aggressive. But that's science, self-correcting.
Well, I don't really care what Al Gore, Suzuki, John Kerry, Bozo the Clown, Senator Inhofe, William Gray, Erik Conway, and Carrot Top the comic say. I also don't put much stock in predictions from models or predictions from deniers. What I pay attention to are temperatures, anomalies, info from ice cores, info from animal studies, etc.
Whatever is going to happen, I doubt anyone will persuade anyone else one way or the other.
Personally, I think the planet has been warmer, it will be again, it is part of a cycle, etc. but it hasn't happened at such a fast rate before. I also think that we've polluted land, sea, and we've polluted the atmosphere before (and again, not at this rate), too, and each have shown consequences, so I think it's inane to think we can pollute the planet's air again without more backlash. Yes, I think the planet will recover, but it will do so with the expense of a lot of human grief. And it seems to be a human trait to repeat idiotic behaviors of the past. Why? So a few people can get richer and a lot of people can fruitlessly dream of being rich. But, oh well, fools will be fools and the sun will shine tomorrow and ignore the nonsense humans concoct. Me and mine will remain comfortable, fairly detached, and amused.
Whatever is going to happen, I doubt anyone will persuade anyone else one way or the other.
Personally, I think the planet has been warmer, it will be again, it is part of a cycle, etc. but it hasn't happened at such a fast rate before. I also think that we've polluted land, sea, and we've polluted the atmosphere before (and again, not at this rate), too, and each have shown consequences, so I think it's inane to think we can pollute the planet's air again without more backlash. Yes, I think the planet will recover, but it will do so with the expense of a lot of human grief. And it seems to be a human trait to repeat idiotic behaviors of the past. Why? So a few people can get richer and a lot of people can fruitlessly dream of being rich. But, oh well, fools will be fools and the sun will shine tomorrow and ignore the nonsense humans concoct. Me and mine will remain comfortable, fairly detached, and amused.
Just one?.. It was a pretty big one I might add.
Willfully ignoring the multitude won't change reality
Nothing more I can say... Let's agree to disagree
I wouldn't say I know all the answers. I would say that the present CO2 forcing isn't something we've seen in the recent past. According to ice core data, not in the last 800,000 years. Radiative forcing from doubling CO2 should work out to an increase in tempertaure of around 1 deg C, ignoring feedback effects (climate sensitivity). We'll probably end up quadrupling the pre-industrial CO2 concentration by 2100 or 2150, so that works out to about 2 deg C of heating, and that will be on top of normal freeze-thaw cycles.
There will likely be ecosystem feedback effects that will amplify or damp the signal, but who knows what they'll be.
That offers nothing to explain the past climate events spanning the millenia. You either have the understanding or you don't
"..... Investor's Business Daily reports "Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record. There is more sea ice now than there was in mid-September 1990. Al Gore, call your office."
A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013" that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off . .. by 920,000 square miles.
In his Dec. 10, 2007, "Earth has a fever" speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions as the seas rose to swallow up places like the island of Manhattan....
As the Daily Mail reports, "A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year — an increase of 60%." The much-touted Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific froze up and has remained blocked by pack ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back."
Weekend Open Thread | NewsBusters
A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be "ice-free by 2013" that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off . .. by 920,000 square miles.
In his Dec. 10, 2007, "Earth has a fever" speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic's summer ice could "completely disappear" by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions as the seas rose to swallow up places like the island of Manhattan....
As the Daily Mail reports, "A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year — an increase of 60%." The much-touted Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific froze up and has remained blocked by pack ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back."
Weekend Open Thread | NewsBusters
Screw you. How about Wolverine?
The concern isn't since last year. It's the trend.
