UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[petros]

If man stopped keeping and manipulating data, it wouldn't be man made.

 

[captain morgan]

Sigh, and this is where you show true ignorance. A scientific theory means very strong evidence, as in we don't need to run multiple studies and tests to reliably predict what will happen if you push an apple off the edge of your dining room table. Neither do we need to run multiple studies to determine the difference if you did the same on the moon. Or if you tried it on the International Space Station. We have a theory that works very well, though of course it's not complete, not 100%. Yet I bet you probably wouldn't argue with the application of that theory.

I suppose it's not entirely your fault, many people in this world are unable to distinguish contextually between a scientific theory, and the lay version of what bests translates into an educated guess. It's not an educated guess what will happen to the apple on your table, and it's not an educated guess as to what happens when you increase the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation. It traps more heat.

Yes, more big words...but you ought to know that a scientific theory is only a theory because there is a great deal of evidence, because the evidence is robust so that multiple methods of investigation yield repeatable results.

I don't expect any of this to sink in though, so far the only sketpical person on this forum with an open mind on this subject is Bear. He's shown himself to be a cut above the rest, as in he's a skeptic that changes his view when you provide him with evidence.



Yes, that damn Arrhenius, you're onto the conspiracy :roll:

As expected.

I have seen the offerings that you have posted on the matter and can even appreciate the significance of such. However, your blind devotion on the issue represents only a tiny fraction of the variables that are involved in this equation.

Much like the UN/IPCC, you can't wrap your head around the myriad of other theories that have been forwarded and therefore, you pretend that they don't exist... I believe that Petros or even Darkbeaver has attempted to school you on this, but alas, their contributions just don't fit into your neat little box of comprehension and your magically scientific attitude responds with ridicule and stubborn ignorance

The logic is akin to being able to unlock the door on your car and based on that mastery, you therefore claim that you are now somehow expert on the engineering of a highway.

What makes your brand of fanaticism more compelling is that you actually believe you understand the totality of the systems... Either an amazing achievement of human endeavor or the height of arrogance... I believe that it is the latter

Sad and quite frankly, highly pathetic.

 

[petros]

The models all failed. It's all worthless junk.

All that remains is anecdotal.

 

[captain morgan]

This is where you show your true ignorance! Not ignorance as in you don't understand (though that could be applied too) but ignorance as in you are an ignorant SOB. If you think talking down to people will ever get your point across you are sadly mistaken, and well, ignorant.

Buddy's biggest problem is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Too many years of believing that the only possibilities are detailed in a chapter and verse or the latest abstract from another narrow-viewed individual

The models all failed. It's all worthless junk.

... Impossible!

After all, it was forwarded as a peer-reviewed hypothesis

 

[petros]

Maybe we beat it? Maybe all the paper cups and useless wind energy worked? It's okay now that hundreds of power plants are shut down and electricity prices tripled and diesel and gasoline up one hundred and fifty percent. But my oh my can I ever buy NG for cheap and it's green.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes, they are valuable tools. As is a hammer. But a hammer is not carpentry and carpentry is not a hammer. Logic is a way of organising information. Its formulation considerably pre-dates science.

I

The date for science please or a link?

That is not a trick question.

She must have gone for some oats.

This might help

Origin of SCIENCE

Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shedFirst Known Use: 14th century

 

[Locutus]

The models all failed. It's all worthless junk.

All that remains is anecdotal.

'Clinically proven'

'The Ponds Institute'

 

[Walter]

The Aluminatti is winning!

Alcan?

There's a consensus alright.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report: ‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep

 

[petros]

Alcan?

Reynolds is owned by Alcan.

Follow the GE made Global Warming phenomenon and the bell curve(hockey stick) of GEs value rise from free money free reign and exclusive global deals.

No single company has benefitted more from Global Climate Change than GE.

By a long shot.

 

[taxslave]

Yep, had a refrigeration ticket since 1996 but have no idea how a fridge works!

Scientists are just like engineers and architects. If it works on paper it must work in the real world. :roll:

And like the saying goes
To err is human
To really fuk up requires an engineer
with a computer.

 

[petros]

This US Gov document is amazing: Analysis & Projections - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Key findings

The value of direct federal financial interventions and subsidies in energy markets doubled between 2007 and 2010, growing from $17.9 billion to $37.2 billion. In broad categories, the largest increase was for conservation and end-use subsidies, followed to a lesser degree by increases in electricity-related subsidies and subsidies for fuels used outside the electricity sector (Table ES1).

 

[Zipperfish]

I deal in facts and the real world and real world applications. You deal in hypothesis and conjecture in a theoretical world. Now how am I the one making sh*t up?

Yet when asked to provide facts, you couldn't.

Oh, you need help. There is a huge difference between reading and writing about a topic and actually going out and doing it in the real world. I have met many engineers and architects who believe because they can make it work with paper & pen it is possible in a real world application. Well here's a news flash, the real world is different from the theoretical. I have run into more than a couple of people that can teach a subject without having the ability to actually do it.

Well, let me tell you, in the real world, if you didn't know that cooling units give off more heat than they cool, you would quickly raise a large building to a very uncomfortable temperature and you would have a lot real-world pissed off people.

I'm sorry that you don't have a good grasp of science. I don't know what else to say.

As expected.

I have seen the offerings that you have posted on the matter and can even appreciate the significance of such. However, your blind devotion on the issue represents only a tiny fraction of the variables that are involved in this equation.

Much like the UN/IPCC, you can't wrap your head around the myriad of other theories that have been forwarded and therefore, you pretend that they don't exist... I believe that Petros or even Darkbeaver has attempted to school you on this, but alas, their contributions just don't fit into your neat little box of comprehension and your magically scientific attitude responds with ridicule and stubborn ignorance

The logic is akin to being able to unlock the door on your car and based on that mastery, you therefore claim that you are now somehow expert on the engineering of a highway.

What makes your brand of fanaticism more compelling is that you actually believe you understand the totality of the systems... Either an amazing achievement of human endeavor or the height of arrogance... I believe that it is the latter

Sad and quite frankly, highly pathetic.

It's not that I can't accept any other theories, it's just that no denier has ever done a decent job of explaining to me if the CO2 isn't heating up the surface, then why isn't it? I mean the physics is pretty well accepted that doubling CO2 should raise the surface temp about i deg C. You'd be hard-pressed to even find skeptics who don't accept that.

The other thing is teh skeptcis can't explain where all the extra CO2 is coming from if not from fossil fuel combustion.

 

[Kreskin]

According to NASA the planet is warming. Big surprise to some, not so for others.

NASA Discusses 2011 Sea Ice Minimum [720p] - YouTube

 

[Zipperfish]

Yes, and where will you find epistemology in a university catalog? Under philosophy. And Russell is what? A scientist? I think not.

Well, once you get into the weeds, you end up over in epistemology, regardless. That's what happened to Popper, and Kuhn and Russell.

In actuality, there is an omnipotent and omniscient deity watching over all of the Universe, coordinating all of the myriad interactions between objects to make them seem to be collections of particles and waves that behave in perfect harmony with an inviolate set of natural laws. This is all an illusion, however; this deity is the Great Comedian, Shecky. At some point, known only to the mind of Shecky, He will abruptly drop the facade that causes the Universe to appear to make sense. This will happen at the Moment of Greatest Comedic Effect, when all will know Shecky’s Truth, and there will be much wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth. So perfect and pure is the Comedy, however, that mere days later everyone will think back to the MGCE, nod their heads, and with a thoughtful and appreciative grin remark, “Yeah, that was pretty funny.”

 

[captain morgan]

It's not that I can't accept any other theories, it's just that no denier has ever done a decent job of explaining to me if the CO2 isn't heating up the surface, then why isn't it? I mean the physics is pretty well accepted that doubling CO2 should raise the surface temp about i deg C. You'd be hard-pressed to even find skeptics who don't accept that.

The other thing is teh skeptcis can't explain where all the extra CO2 is coming from if not from fossil fuel combustion.

I don't disagree with the base premise, but where I find it interesting is the anthropogenic component is a pittance compared to the natural sources that are active each and every day.... And herein lies the problem with the doomsayer crowd and IPCC - they espouse that somehow, by virtue of developing nations paying into some scheme, it will reduce in any meaningful manner, the effects that they postulate (in theory only) are warming the globe in an apocalyptic manner.

With that in mind, the 'extra CO2' does not exist as you believe it does... The hydrocarbons (today) were once free in the atmosphere before they were naturally sequestered via some kind of mechanism... Humanity has not magically synthesized carbon, CO2 or any other GHG.

At the end of the day, the fear mongering by the gores and suzukis (or IPCCs)of the world are nothing more than a shell game.

 

[Kreskin]

Would that be the same if US and Russia unleashed all of their nukes at once? The stuff all came from earth, didn't it?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yet when asked to provide facts, you couldn't.

You never asked for facts about anything. You just spew your narrow-minded theoretical bullsh*t. Your previos post are showing the fact that you are a small-minded a$$hole with delusions of grandeur. Thats a fact for ya.

Well, let me tell you, in the real world, if you didn't know that cooling units give off more heat than they cool, you would quickly raise a large building to a very uncomfortable temperature and you would have a lot real-world pissed off people.

Oh, there's that theoretical vs real world thing again. In the real world cooling towers are place on the roof, not inside the building dumba$$. A/C units are also designed for rooftop or in residential applications they are split with one heat exchanger outside and one inside. If you have a heat-pump it has a TX valve which reverses the flow of refrigerant to give you heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. But hey, I don't know f*ck all and you know everything, well everything you can learn in kindergarden.

I'm sorry that you don't have a good grasp of science. I don't know what else to say.

I'm sorry you don't have any grasp of language or the meaning of words or any real world application of your inane suppositions.

It's not that I can't accept any other theories....

Actually that's the problem in a nutshell. You have your theory (guess, hypothesis, supposition) and nothing anyone else says (including the top dogs from MIT) will change your mind even historical evidence and what is actually happening in the real world.

 

[captain morgan]

Would that be the same if US and Russia unleashed all of their nukes at once? The stuff all came from earth, didn't it?

Have it your way.

What are you going to do the next time that a volcano spews it's CO2, ash and debris into the atmosphere?... Lobby the UN to tax someone?

... Or maybe that addition of GHGs just doesn't count?

 

[petros]

According to NASA the planet is warming. Big surprise to some, not so for others.

NASA Discusses 2011 Sea Ice Minimum [720p] - YouTube

It's been steadily cooling since the Devonian.

 

[Kreskin]

It's been steadily cooling since the Devonian.

Yes, even NASA is wrong. If they don't work for the oil industry they're wrong.