<50% of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[Zzarchov]

Its just common sense Walter.

You can't believe human's aren't capable of negatively affecting the environment, and also believe that Mutaul Assured Destruction kept the world on the brink of man-made apocalypse for 50 years.

People are more than capable of terminating all life on earth. This isn't some new era of "Can mankind change the world in a bad way?"

Its not even IS mankind changing the world, its "Is mankind responsible for doing the majority of the damage or are we just giving a few extra kicks in when the world is down?".

See my previous post for why it doesn't matter either way for what we need to do.

 

[Extrafire]

The Tesla car outfit has made all kinds of wild statements about performance that are just not achievable with current technology. They are looking for investors and these numbers are a hoax. You might be able to build an electric car that will accelerate to 60 miles an hour in 4 seconds.and you might conceivably build an electric car that will go 250 miles on a charge, but they won't be the same car.

Juan, Juan, Juan, what are we going to do with you?:-? You've enclosed yourself in a bubble of denial. Come out and face the facts.

Yes, Juan, the technology does exist, and prototypes have been built and tested, and it's slated to go into production next year. You can watch it driving in the last half of this video clip.

It achieves its performance by way of a 2 speed transmission, low speed for the incredible acceleration, and a high speed for the impressive top end. Electric motors perform quite differently from internal combustion engines, which is why it can do it with only two speeds.

It's not surprising that he's looking for investors. Do you have any comprehension how much it costs to launch a start-up auto manufacturer? Do you have any idea of the failure rate of start-up auto companies (think Delorean, Bricklin, Tucker)? If I had multi-millions of venture capital to invest I doubt I would put it in that kind of venture. (I know (and so does everybody else) that if it was non-existent, there would be no purpose looking for investors. You have to be able to show them what the money's going into, or nobody smart enough to make that kind of money will give it to you.)

On the other hand, if that car had been developed by one of the big existing auto manufacturers it would already be available. As it is, I know that Honda and GM are rushing to develop plug-in electric cars, and may be about to compete with the Tesla.

 

[#juan]

Juan, Juan, Juan, what are we going to do with you?:-? You've enclosed yourself in a bubble of denial. Come out and face the facts.

Yes, Juan, the technology does exist, and prototypes have been built and tested, and it's slated to go into production next year. You can watch it driving in the last half of this video clip.

It achieves its performance by way of a 2 speed transmission, low speed for the incredible acceleration, and a high speed for the impressive top end. Electric motors perform quite differently from internal combustion engines, which is why it can do it with only two speeds.

It's not surprising that he's looking for investors. Do you have any comprehension how much it costs to launch a start-up auto manufacturer? Do you have any idea of the failure rate of start-up auto companies (think Delorean, Bricklin, Tucker)? If I had multi-millions of venture capital to invest I doubt I would put it in that kind of venture. (I know (and so does everybody else) that if it was non-existent, there would be no purpose looking for investors. You have to be able to show them what the money's going into, or nobody smart enough to make that kind of money will give it to you.)

On the other hand, if that car had been developed by one of the big existing auto manufacturers it would already be available. As it is, I know that Honda and GM are rushing to develop plug-in electric cars, and may be about to compete with the Tesla.

The last report I read, the Tesla was able to just achieve 100 miles on a single charge, and that is about average. I see they've dropped the claim that the car will go a hundred and fifty five miles an hour. Let me know when they start building an electric car infrastructire so that all these Teslas can get re-charged between races.....


BTW, there is no solid price available yet for these wonders of science but it will be somewhere between $80,000.00 and $120,000.00..........A lot of money for a car with about six thousand lap-top batteries......;-)

 

[Unforgiven]

Its just common sense Walter.

You can't believe human's aren't capable of negatively affecting the environment, and also believe that Mutaul Assured Destruction kept the world on the brink of man-made apocalypse for 50 years.

People are more than capable of terminating all life on earth. This isn't some new era of "Can mankind change the world in a bad way?"

Its not even IS mankind changing the world, its "Is mankind responsible for doing the majority of the damage or are we just giving a few extra kicks in when the world is down?".

See my previous post for why it doesn't matter either way for what we need to do.

I disagree. While we do have the means to kill off ourselves there is no way to kill it all off. Hell we can't even get rid of the jerks, let alone everything else.

 

[Extrafire]

Its just common sense Walter.

You can't believe human's aren't capable of negatively affecting the environment,

Has anyone ever said that???

and also believe that Mutaul Assured Destruction kept the world on the brink of man-made apocalypse for 50 years.

You'll have to explain this connection to me.

People are more than capable of terminating all life on earth.

What arrogance. No, we can't do that. We can terminate all human life, and quite few other species as well, but we can't even come close to eliminating all life. George Carlin spells it out again.

This isn't some new era of "Can mankind change the world in a bad way?"

Don't know what this one means either.

Its not even IS mankind changing the world, its "Is mankind responsible for doing the majority of the damage or are we just giving a few extra kicks in when the world is down?".

What damage would that be? Global warming? There's no question on that one. We aren't responsible. The science is clear on that.

 

[Extrafire]

This argument is getting downright foolish. Anyone who still thinks that humans can't negatively affect the world are in sad need of help. Mean global temperatures are published every year. There is more than enough information to show the relationship between the concentration of CO2 and global temperatures.

Yes, and it clearly shows that temperature increase causes CO2 increase.

[SIZE=-1]Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.[/SIZE]
.
.
[SIZE=-1]It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. [/SIZE]

Link for full article

Man has almost destroyed the world fishing industry.

You're correct on that one.

Man-made acid rain is destroying forests in the east.

No, they're doing just fine. A lot of lakes have become acidified, but that was them just returning to normal after being alkalined from all the clearing of land and burning in the previous century. Seems that the acidic state was the natural state.

Global warming is giving the Pine Beetle more and more access to our forests every year as well as destroying the habitat of seals and Polar bears.

The pine beetle has always been a threat. 40 years ago when I was with the BC forest service we were always on guard against it, because we knew that something like this could happen. There were always infestations to fight, even when there were cold winters. Besides, if it was cold that controlled the beetle, why were most infestations in the northern part of the province? Why do we even have pine forests in the southern part where it never gets that cold? And both seals and polar bears are in the process of a population explosion. Seems they like it warmer. Polar bears are 5 times as numerous as 50 years ago.

I would say it is time to take this global warming thing seriously.

I'd be more concerned about global cooling. What could happen

 

[Extrafire]

Because there are heating and cooling technologies that use the same concepts in practical applications. The fact that some substances absorb short wave and long wave radiation at different rates is used in many applications for temperature control. Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will make the temperature rise

OK, I see your point, but it seems to confirm my position rather than contradict it.

Whether or not human activity is the main cause is kinda silly. Thats like saying that you shouldn't put out a fire in your kitchen, because your not sure if THATS the fire thats making the smoke detector go off. Either put out the fire, or if you really think its useless, change your environment (ie leave the burning house).

No, now you're making an inappropriate analogy. It's more like, there's a huge forest fire that you didn't start, but you throw a few sticks into it and they catch fire, and you are suggesting that by removing the sticks you threw in, you will extinguish the fire.

So if the earth is warming, we can either lay off Greenhouse gas emission and hope that works,

We know it won't, so why bother.

or dismantle our coastal and low lying cities and begin prep work to irrigate large tracts of arctic land because you believe the warming is out of our hands.

I know the warming is out of our hands, and I know the sea level rise is minuscule and natural, and caused by the expansion due to warming, and that antarctic ice is increasing.

But sitting around doing the status quo is stupid. If what your doing now is slowly failing, continuing to do it longer won't make it magically work.

Nothing that has been proposed by the doomsayers would have any effect even if they were right about it, and in fact what has been done so far is more damaging to the environment than helpful.

 

[Tonington]

Link for full article


No, they're doing just fine. A lot of lakes have become acidified, but that was them just returning to normal after being alkalined from all the clearing of land and burning in the previous century. Seems that the acidic state was the natural state.


I'd be more concerned about global cooling. What could happen

That's a whole lot of BS. First, I wouldn't put too much stock in the writings of a retired explosives expert, who has represented coal companies in the past. Dr. Hertzberg =/= climatologist. Hertzberg basically asserts that the changes are due to orbital variations like the changing elliptical, basically Milankovich cycles, only they operate on timescales of thousands of years, not tens.

Second, our eastern watercourses are not returning to their natural state. Acid rain has basically made many of our rivers uninhabitable to the prized brook trout. The pH in the rivers is so bad, that a DFO biodiversity facility I worked at needs to treat incoming water to bring the pH up to a tolerable level for the brook trout, the salmon and the endangered Atlantic whitefish, which now is only found in one of our rivers. The reason the pH is a problem is due to the geology of Nova Scotia. There isn't enough soil to buffer the acid rain, and it runs right into the rivers. There are some rivers where you cannot safely eat the fish.

I don't know if you've driven through NS, but we haven't cleared much land at all, lots of trees.

 

[Extrafire]

That's a whole lot of BS. First, I wouldn't put too much stock in the writings of a retired explosives expert, who has represented coal companies in the past. Dr. Hertzberg =/= climatologist.

I'll ignore this. It's irrelevant You're doing it again. When people have the evidence, they use it. When they don't, they shoot the messenger. It's an admission of defeat, and I know you didn't want to do that. You should know better. (by that standard I must assume you'll ignore anything coming from Suzuki as well.)

Hertzberg basically asserts that the changes are due to orbital variations like the changing elliptical, basically Milankovich cycles, only they operate on timescales of thousands of years, not tens.

And that relates to this?

The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.

Second, our eastern watercourses are not returning to their natural state. Acid rain has basically made many of our rivers uninhabitable to the prized brook trout. The pH in the rivers is so bad, that a DFO biodiversity facility I worked at needs to treat incoming water to bring the pH up to a tolerable level for the brook trout, the salmon and the endangered Atlantic whitefish, which now is only found in one of our rivers. The reason the pH is a problem is due to the geology of Nova Scotia. There isn't enough soil to buffer the acid rain, and it runs right into the rivers. There are some rivers where you cannot safely eat the fish.

I don't know if you've driven through NS, but we haven't cleared much land at all, lots of trees.

I would tend to doubt that you can't safely eat fish due to ph balance. I would believe that might be due to pollutants, but I have no knowledge of the waters you refer to, so I'll bow to your knowledge.

The article I read on the acidic lakes some years ago referred to Ontario and Quebec, so I don't know if it's relevant to NS. Yes the trees have grown back, but it can take a long time for the alkaline of the fires to leach out of the soil, which is why the lakes have been changing so long after the burning. According to the article, the soil is naturally acidic, which is quite true in areas of peat bog, which apparently is quite prevalent in the boreal forest in that area. I can't put my hands on the article so I can't provide a reference. That acid rain could still be causing such problems is unlikely, since there's been such a reduction in those emissions in the past 30 years.

 

[Locutus]

Here's some of that Carlin piece Extrafire alluded-to. George Carlin is a very bright man. I tried to copy and keep it without any bleeding heart sensitive asterisks:



"George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"


We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fu_cking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fu_cking planet?
I'm getting tired of that sh_it. Tired of that sh_it. I'm tired of fu_cking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a sh_it about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fu_cked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!
We're going away. Pack your sh_it, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...as_shole.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."


:notworthy:

 

[Tonington]

I'll ignore this. It's irrelevant You're doing it again. When people have the evidence, they use it. When they don't, they shoot the messenger. It's an admission of defeat, and I know you didn't want to do that. You should know better. (by that standard I must assume you'll ignore anything coming from Suzuki as well.)
And that relates to this?I would tend to doubt that you can't safely eat fish due to ph balance. I would believe that might be due to pollutants, but I have no knowledge of the waters you refer to, so I'll bow to your knowledge.

The article I read on the acidic lakes some years ago referred to Ontario and Quebec, so I don't know if it's relevant to NS. Yes the trees have grown back, but it can take a long time for the alkaline of the fires to leach out of the soil, which is why the lakes have been changing so long after the burning. According to the article, the soil is naturally acidic, which is quite true in areas of peat bog, which apparently is quite prevalent in the boreal forest in that area. I can't put my hands on the article so I can't provide a reference. That acid rain could still be causing such problems is unlikely, since there's been such a reduction in those emissions in the past 30 years.

I do ignore Suzuki as well as Gore. I'll get my info from those in the field thank you very much. The issue is that much of the 'junk science' is being dumped on an unknowing public, who can't separate good science from junk. I suppose you think also then that Steve Milloy should not be trusted, I certainly don't trust his work.

The point is that Hertzberg asserts that the changes in the temperature-carbon dioxide can be attributed to the changing elliptical. If that were truly the case, we would not see rising and falling in the short span of a few decades, obviously something else is at work, and his training in pyrotechnics does not give him the skills needed to be anything but a speculative observer.

Whatever the case in Ontario/Quebec, our problem in the Maritimes is 100% due to the fact that we are downwind from New England, Central Canada, and the Ohio river valley.

 

[eh1eh]

Tonnington. You're a scientist and a realist. There's hope for our future. :smile:

 

[Tonington]

thanks Eh

 

[Extrafire]

I do ignore Suzuki as well as Gore.

Based on their qualifications? I'm glad to hear that you do ignore them, but only because their claims are total BS, even deliberate fraud. I don't give a rip about anyone's qualifications, only the evidence presented.

I'll get my info from those in the field thank you very much. The issue is that much of the 'junk science' is being dumped on an unknowing public, who can't separate good science from junk. I suppose you think also then that Steve Milloy should not be trusted, I certainly don't trust his work.

I base my trust on evidence, not people or their qualifications. Once a person has provided good evidence, I'm inclined to give him/her more credibility, and vice versa.

The point is that Hertzberg asserts that the changes in the temperature-carbon dioxide can be attributed to the changing elliptical. If that were truly the case, we would not see rising and falling in the short span of a few decades, obviously something else is at work,

I'll grant you that, but what I was pointing out was evidence; a 30% decrease in human CO2 emissions didn't even result in a 1 ppm drop in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That's pretty compelling evidence against the idea that anthropological emissions are responsible for the increase.

and his training in pyrotechnics does not give him the skills needed to be anything but a speculative observer.

Once again, totally irrelevant. Don't shoot the messenger; address the evidence.

Whatever the case in Ontario/Quebec, our problem in the Maritimes is 100% due to the fact that we are downwind from New England, Central Canada, and the Ohio river valley.

As I said, I have no direct knowledge on that, but I find it surprising. Considering all the reductions from 30 years ago, if you're having those kind of problems now, how did you ever manage to survive when concentrations were many orders of magnitude higher? (Of course, this is a topic for a different thread.)

 

[Extrafire]

Here's some of that Carlin piece Extrafire alluded-to. George Carlin is a very bright man. I tried to copy and keep it without any bleeding heart sensitive asterisks:

You transcribed that whole thing? Impressive!

 

[typingrandomstuff]

I think the scientists agree in their hearts that they believe the weather is warming on the surface. It sort of become their opinions. They want to keep their honours and still get a award. It's a poll after all. Polls give opinions and polls are not consensus. Even consensus is not facts. Facts are not made up points or opinions. Facts are true no matter what.

If it is true what is being said in the 70s, then it is the fault of the scientists and the media that they allow the improper facts or opinions float around the place faking the real facts. I don't trust those scientists. They are bummers and they never give something great. What have they be doing all those years. If national geograpics is published in the 1960s, what have been they doing all those years?

And you believe them?

Documents are wordy. It is a little off.

Globe is changing in the colder, and hotter on the surface values. It must be hotter because in rainstorms, the temperature is 25degree celcius or higher. Normally in ottawa, it is lower in temperature during the rainstorm.

As for sunspots, the sun is just having the regular cycles. Not much to comment. The funny thing is, if you say the sun's sunspots (the coolest area in the sun) is responsible for the heating you would oppose:
1. The sunspot is cold and it do not give off energy
and support:
2. The sun is actually a special gas different from all the suns and the scientist's way of looking at the sun

Ironic and yet extremely odd. I was on a break.

Why, so glum? Excuses of selfishness, fear, anger and hatrids should not be blocking your true goals.

 

[Tonington]

Based on their qualifications? I'm glad to hear that you do ignore them, but only because their claims are total BS, even deliberate fraud. I don't give a rip about anyone's qualifications, only the evidence presented.


I base my trust on evidence, not people or their qualifications. Once a person has provided good evidence, I'm inclined to give him/her more credibility, and vice versa.
I'll grant you that, but what I was pointing out was evidence; a 30% decrease in human CO2 emissions didn't even result in a 1 ppm drop in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That's pretty compelling evidence against the idea that anthropological emissions are responsible for the increase.
Once again, totally irrelevant. Don't shoot the messenger; address the evidence.
As I said, I have no direct knowledge on that, but I find it surprising. Considering all the reductions from 30 years ago, if you're having those kind of problems now, how did you ever manage to survive when concentrations were many orders of magnitude higher? (Of course, this is a topic for a different thread.)

I agree with you partly on Gore and Suzuki. Some of what they say is BS, same for the skeptic stars. This is why qualifications become relevant, when only giving supporting facts or stories. It's called selection bias and this issue is clouded by much polemic due to this bias. When they aren't qualified, and make blatantly obvious mistakes in the 'science' supporting their hypothesis, you cannot trust the results. He also puts too much emphasis on water vapour, without enough on greenhouse gases. The forcings involved in both are the key factor, as well as the different interactions they are involved in throughout the atmosphere, paying special attention to altitudes at which they persist.

Evidence can be drummed up and seem very convincing, until the science is dissected. That is what peer review is for, and why you don't see many people like Gore or Hertzfeld or Suzuki in climate journals, at least reputable ones.

What did he say about the rates of change? How did the CO2 react before and after the 30% drop.

Notice that he talks of the drop in 1936 in greenhouse gas emissions, claiming 30% drop in human emissions, listed in gigatonnes. Nowhere does he say what the atmospheric concentration is, in fact he goes back to show you how the concentrations in ppm were changing in the half decade before, but never does he show you how the concentration reacts to a sudden drop. I doubt he has much comprehension of the time scales involved for a halting of emissions, trust me it's not immediate. You even posted an article where the most conservative estimates (themselves in contention) were in 3-5 years. We still have 30 years of accrued temperature increase(think of it like built up bank credit) left to hit us for the corresponding increase to GHG, a positive feedback that is also ignored.

His science is bunk. I can tear holes in it and I'm not even a climate expert, I'm a freaking aquaculture student.

Enough of this all. Many of the former people and institutions camped against this science have now changed their stories again. They no longer fight against the science, they instead fight for energy independence and clean coal and carbon sequestration, which could do well, but not feasible on energy requirements alone to be as large scale as they would hope.

How am I supposed to trust these goons who since this debate began gave been telling us about scary diabolical intentions, and hidden agendas, when they have shown their agenda all along, money. Continuing to use up this dirty energy to get the most out of their capital investments, the ecosystem be damned. Just look at how the coal mining industry is allowed to operate, reprehensible.

 

[Locutus]

You transcribed that whole thing? Impressive!

No credit for my part. Sorry if I implied that. His essays can be found on several sites but I borrowed it from a notorious flame site:

http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html

 

[Extrafire]

I agree with you partly on Gore and Suzuki. Some of what they say is BS, same for the skeptic stars. This is why qualifications become relevant, when only giving supporting facts or stories. It's called selection bias and this issue is clouded by much polemic due to this bias. When they aren't qualified, and make blatantly obvious mistakes in the 'science' supporting their hypothesis, you cannot trust the results. He also puts too much emphasis on water vapour, without enough on greenhouse gases. The forcings involved in both are the key factor, as well as the different interactions they are involved in throughout the atmosphere, paying special attention to altitudes at which they persist.

Evidence can be drummed up and seem very convincing, until the science is dissected. That is what peer review is for, and why you don't see many people like Gore or Hertzfeld or Suzuki in climate journals, at least reputable ones.

I would think you might see Suzuki in peer reviewed journals if he were writing on genetics, his field. He was a serious and respected researcher before he got into the TV business and then environmentalism.

But the peer review process can fail too. Just look how they gave Mann a pass on his hockey stick! They didn't even check!

What did he say about the rates of change? How did the CO2 react before and after the 30% drop.

Notice that he talks of the drop in 1936 in greenhouse gas emissions, claiming 30% drop in human emissions, listed in gigatonnes. Nowhere does he say what the atmospheric concentration is, in fact he goes back to show you how the concentrations in ppm were changing in the half decade before, but never does he show you how the concentration reacts to a sudden drop.

He said they didn't react at all.

I doubt he has much comprehension of the time scales involved for a halting of emissions, trust me it's not immediate. You even posted an article where the most conservative estimates (themselves in contention) were in 3-5 years. We still have 30 years of accrued temperature increase(think of it like built up bank credit) left to hit us for the corresponding increase to GHG, a positive feedback that is also ignored.

I don't expect much temperature increase, since it hasn't followed GHG increases in the past, quite the opposite, as we've seen.

His science is bunk. I can tear holes in it and I'm not even a climate expert, I'm a freaking aquaculture student.

His science? No, he's just reporting it, like me and you. And your qualifications in that regard are just as irrelevant as anyone elses. It's the evidence you present that counts.

Enough of this all. Many of the former people and institutions camped against this science have now changed their stories again. They no longer fight against the science, they instead fight for energy independence and clean coal and carbon sequestration, which could do well, but not feasible on energy requirements alone to be as large scale as they would hope.

How am I supposed to trust these goons who since this debate began gave been telling us about scary diabolical intentions, and hidden agendas, when they have shown their agenda all along, money. Continuing to use up this dirty energy to get the most out of their capital investments, the ecosystem be damned. Just look at how the coal mining industry is allowed to operate, reprehensible.

If you're going to suggest money as an agenda, it applies mostly to the scaremongers. 50 billion in government handouts so far, and climbing.

 

[Tonington]

He said they didn't react at all.

I don't expect much temperature increase, since it hasn't followed GHG increases in the past, quite the opposite, as we've seen.

If you're going to suggest money as an agenda, it applies mostly to the scaremongers. 50 billion in government handouts so far, and climbing.

I asked how they were reacting before and after. Simple calculus derivatives. An instance provides little information unless we know what was happening before and after.

The issue of GHG following in the past is irrelevant, as I explained before. Completely different situations.

Any links? How much has the fossil fuel industry received in favourable tax exemptions and R&D grants?