Actually there is NO evidence for dangerous global warming caused by humans. THe claim of AGW is based entirely on models, which are not evidence. All the evidence points to natural variation in climate, not anthropogenic.
Glen Beck, The climate of Fear
- Thread starter s243a
- Start date
No matter how many times you repeat this, it will still not be fact. We have observational evidence of an atmosphere which is in energy imbalance. That is, more radiation is being retained, and less is escaping to space.
The most recent study to my knowledge:
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950
Not only that, but we have corollaries to that fact. The upper atmosphere cools, as the lower atmosphere warms. Because more energy is retained in the bottom layer of the atmosphere (trapped by greenhouse gases), less is going to space, and that means the upper atmosphere cools. There is no other explanation for those facts. Solar causes of warming would warm all layers of the atmosphere.
Now please educate yourself, and cease your parroting of lies.
It seems that even back in 2005 people weren't relying ONLY on global climate models.
NASA GISS: Research News: Earth's Energy Out of Balance
And then there is this month's update:
Earth's energy balance since 1950 - Physics Update
NASA GISS: Research News: Earth's Energy Out of Balance
And then there is this month's update:
Earth's energy balance since 1950 - Physics Update
And as to models, what would be the alternative for experimentation? Scientists use experiments as one means of elucidating natural causes and mechanisms at work in dynamic systems. For agricultural science, we have greenhouses, pastures, animals, and yes even models.
There is no analog for the Earth. So how do you experiment without a model? How do you attribute anything without a statistical model? The study I linked to ( and Anna did as well) is in agreement with the IPCC models, only with tighter error bars. That's a pretty good confirmation when observations are backing up what the models predict.
There is no analog for the Earth. So how do you experiment without a model? How do you attribute anything without a statistical model? The study I linked to ( and Anna did as well) is in agreement with the IPCC models, only with tighter error bars. That's a pretty good confirmation when observations are backing up what the models predict.
Do You Have the Right to Flip Off a Cop?
"Hackbart, 34, was looking for a parking space on busy Murray Avenue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood on April 10, 2006. Spotting one, he attempted to back into it, but the driver of the car behind him refused to back up and give him sufficient room. Hackbart responded in the classic way. "I stuck my hand out the window and gave him the finger to say 'Hey, jerk, thanks,' " says Hackbart. "That's all I was trying to say — 'Thanks, thanks a lot.' "
Do You Have the Right to Flip Off a Cop? - TIME
The term Green House Gases was developed co-incidentally and co-operatively with the Anthropocentric Global Warming models and political agenda in the late 1980s. The words carbon and emissions are words that any scientist or lay person would be familiar prior to that.
What the AGW lobby did was package the scientific fantasy into a phrase that was carefully developed to evoke catastrophic and bleak consequences of human interaction with the natural environment.
It is you that seems to be having trouble grasping this Tonnington. I guess you must be one of those people who would buy into Bernie Madoff and Charles Ponzi investment schemes and the like, a sucker for visions of instant wealth or imminent destruction, depending on who is doing the selling.
I'm seeing a trend here.
It seems Global Warming is the Consevatives conspiracy theory where 9-11 is for the Liberal types?
Neato!
It seems Global Warming is the Consevatives conspiracy theory where 9-11 is for the Liberal types?
Neato!
You just keep proving your ignorance. The term greenhouse effect was coined by Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century, to explain an effect that had first been noticed by Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier in 1824. He believed that the atmosphere was trapping solar radiation, and reflecting it back to earth. Arrhenius thought this effect could explain ice age cycles. It wasn't until the 1960 that the scientific community would give props to Milankovitch for his hypothesis involving changes in earth's orbital parameters and their influence glaciation.
Gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect would be greenhouse gases...and long before computer models or any political agenda.
You're just plain clueless.
The name of this thread - Climate of Fear - is a good one. Can anyone tell me why nearly all that is supposedly happening now, pretty much happened once before (at least) hundreds of years ago and there were no cars around, there was no plastic around etc. etc. I think many shoppers I speak to have the right idea. They want to know why stores are doing away with plastic bags to help the environment, yet same stores are selling plastic garbage and lunch bags and giving away plastic bags for produce. Why are pop companies still selling pop in plastic bottles and why do they still use plastic to hold six cans or bottles of pop or juice together? Exactly what are we eliminating? We are rotating the use to different areas but we are not eliminating anything. People are more concerned about what they will use to line their garbage can with than they are about the environment. Older people in particular want everything double bagged or - because they are too cheap (this goes for all people) to go buy a roll of plain brown paper to mail a parcel (dollar store item)so they double waste by asking for paper in plastic. When you really look at people, very very few are worried about the environment. Large companies are truly not concerned. Cookie packaging for example: Used to come with row on row of cookies. Now you get them with less cookies in a package, packed in plastic, inside a shiny paper bag. The list is endless.
Greenwashing or marketing doesn't mean that the issue is trivial.
A climate change that happened about 50 million years ago, was much larger in magnitude than what we have experienced to date. It was 6°C, compared to our almost one degree now. The difference is speed. Today the surface of the Earth is warming almost 60 times faster (0.17°C per decade versus 0.003°C per decade) than it was during that 6°C change at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary.
Have you wondered much about carbon taxes? You presumably live in the first district in North America to have one. Do you know what the point is? You just listed all the ways that humans externalize. If it doesn't cost them anything, they don't really care. It's called the Tragedy of the Commons. Think of what would happen to a river if there was no regulation at all. Someone could withdraw all kinds of water and the downstream users would be going without. Or they might get rid of waste products from their mill into the stream, resulting in damage to downstream users.
A carbon tax is called a pigovian tax. Pigovian taxes are used to add cost to things deemed harmful, and really good ones will offset the tax by dropping the tax on something which would be beneficial to encourage, like personal savings.
Anyways, it all gets back to the point that people often don't care unless they know about something, and/or you make it costly to continue doing. Knowing about environmental damage isn't enough for some people, so you need to change the market(s) so that people have options and choices to make.
A climate change that happened about 50 million years ago, was much larger in magnitude than what we have experienced to date. It was 6°C, compared to our almost one degree now. The difference is speed. Today the surface of the Earth is warming almost 60 times faster (0.17°C per decade versus 0.003°C per decade) than it was during that 6°C change at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary.
Have you wondered much about carbon taxes? You presumably live in the first district in North America to have one. Do you know what the point is? You just listed all the ways that humans externalize. If it doesn't cost them anything, they don't really care. It's called the Tragedy of the Commons. Think of what would happen to a river if there was no regulation at all. Someone could withdraw all kinds of water and the downstream users would be going without. Or they might get rid of waste products from their mill into the stream, resulting in damage to downstream users.
A carbon tax is called a pigovian tax. Pigovian taxes are used to add cost to things deemed harmful, and really good ones will offset the tax by dropping the tax on something which would be beneficial to encourage, like personal savings.
Anyways, it all gets back to the point that people often don't care unless they know about something, and/or you make it costly to continue doing. Knowing about environmental damage isn't enough for some people, so you need to change the market(s) so that people have options and choices to make.
Well, that's exactly what we have been doing. Plastic floating in the oceans for miles, spilling crap into our drinking water, and do I have to mention Los Angeles air breathability in the 60s and 70s, CFCs, etc?
Yeah, we are the ones living in fantasy and there is no human effect upon the planet at all. Yup yup. You go right ahead with your "reality". roflmao
VI, the stuff exists, until we can figure out how to get rid of it in an safe manner, we are stuck with reducing and reusing it.
Yup. It is ridiculous. Companies have to be shown economically how they can save money by being clean or else gov'ts have to force them to be clean.
There are many people (us included that have drastically reduced the impact on our planet. For 79¢ each, we bought about 10 cloth grocery bags. We dropped our trip to the dump by a week just doing that. I think we're down to about 6 or 8 weeks between trips to the dump. our load of recyclables has mounted though but there's a recycle drop-off on the way to town and the dump is out of our way.
The biggest problem is people's laziness and apathy.
Last edited:
Nope. It doesn't matter who is doing the selling to me. I'm not savvy enough to read through financial documents, and determine which balance sheet is cooked and which is not, or which income statement is cooked, and which is not. I do know when something sounds too good to be true. But science, I understand a lot of that language very well. Some dialects more so than others.
So, it's the details that matter to me. You seem keen to repeat talking points, even the irrelevant ones. That's the difference.
I think people have it too good.
You can build a small fire and huddle around as a group or build a giant fire and stand way back and break into groups suspicious of the other.
You can build a small fire and huddle around as a group or build a giant fire and stand way back and break into groups suspicious of the other.
I think it is nice that people are trying to lower our carbon footprint by trying to recycle, but I think it is about a least 50 years to late. We are going to cycle into a period of change, and if the "Nordic Heat Pump/Atlantic Conveyor" does get shut down by global warming life will change for all mankind.
TGlobal Ocean Circulation
"Antarctic ice core records vividly illustrate that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 650,000 years (see figure below). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html#6
TGlobal Ocean Circulation
"Antarctic ice core records vividly illustrate that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels today are higher than levels recorded over the past 650,000 years (see figure below). Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen 30 percent in the last 150 years, with half of that rise occurring only in the last three decades. It is a well-established scientific fact that CO2 (and other gases emitted from industrial and agricultural sources) traps heat in the atmosphere, so it is no surprise that we are now witnessing a dramatic increase in temperature."
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html#6