Green ‘drivel’ exposed 0 The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate

[Cabbagesandking]

He's a climatologist until he speaks heressy against the global warming theory. Once he does that he is a theorist or some other piece of tripe that can be kicked to the curb.

He is no more a climatologist than you are. He is, as reb said, a brilliant theorist but, in this, he is ignoring the climatologists - as he did when at the other extreme a few years ago.

You constantly call those who do not agree with your view "deniers" which given your position, could apply to you also. When one is determined to somehow prove there is no merit on one side of a disagreement involving not just a few but a great many how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Deniers are deniers. There is no other term. There are no sceptics other than the scientists who are lost their scepticism years ago. There is no contrary evidence: no contrary scientists.

It is a bit silly to say that I could be called a denier when all that I do is pass on the conclusions of the great mass of scientists.

There were a few genuine scientists among the sceptics but, there is not one left who actually researches sclimate and is successful in gaing peerr reviewed approval.

any argument is over and it is pure evil to work against serious actions to mitigate the coming calamities.

It is too late to avoid calamity. Several of the tipping points that Rebel mentioned are gone and some are irreversible.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

He is no more a climatologist than you are. He is, as reb said, a brilliant theorist but, in this, he is ignoring the climatologists - as he did when at the other extreme a few years ago.


Deniers are deniers. There is no other term. There are no sceptics other than the scientists who are lost their scepticism years ago. There is no contrary evidence: no contrary scientists.

It is a bit silly to say that I could be called a denier when all that I do is pass on the conclusions of the great mass of scientists.

There were a few genuine scientists among the sceptics but, there is not one left who actually researches sclimate and is successful in gaing peerr reviewed approval.

any argument is over and it is pure evil to work against serious actions to mitigate the coming calamities.

It is too late to avoid calamity. Several of the tipping points that Rebel mentioned are gone and some are irreversible.

Sadly you're almost certainly correct and as we move into a global state that favors warmer global conditions as with a conjunction of a solar sunspot activity maximum and a strong El Nino which is predicted in the next year or so, we'll see some extreme weather events and climatic shifts that will make deniers more and more of the fringe they truly are.

The only real question is how far the "people" who want to continue this destructive path can take us...and it is evil to keep cheering on such a path.

 

[Walter]

Sadly you're almost certainly correct and as we move into a global state that favors warmer global conditions as with a conjunction of a solar sunspot activity maximum and a strong El Nino which is predicted in the next year or so, we'll see some extreme weather events and climatic shifts that will make deniers more and more of the fringe they truly are.

The only real question is how far the "people" who want to continue this destructive path can take us...and it is evil to keep cheering on such a path.

The laughs just keep on coming.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

The laughs just keep on coming.

Like I said on the other thread, only someone who lacks the ability to feel genuine emotions would find the current state of affairs entertaining.

 

[CDNBear]

Like I said on the other thread, only someone who lacks the ability to feel genuine emotions would find the current state of affairs entertaining.

It isn't the state of affairs he finds amusing. It's the BS and hyperbole contained in your posts that he finds humourous. As do many of us.

 

[Tonington]

"Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement."

^ Seems pretty valid to call him the Godfather, unless you can refute this claim or prove someone else made up a system to do the above before he did.

His name was Gordon Dobson, and without inventions like his spectrophotometer there would have been no measurements to indicate that there was something depleting ozone. His spectrophotometer measured ozone, and he built his first in 1924. There is even a meteorological unit named after him, the Dobson unit.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

There are no sides in this and, therefore, no middle. There is the theory agreed to by all researching climate scientists, supported by their models and, now, conformed by observation. They also have the immutable Laws of Physics in support.

Got any reputable links to back up each of the claims in the above paragraph?

Last I heard it was all still a theory -- the part where man is the sole cause of climate change that is. Any body with a brain realizes that the climate has been changing on its own for eons.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Got any reputable links to back up each of the claims in the above paragraph?

Last I heard it was all still a theory -- the part where man is the sole cause of climate change that is. Any body with a brain realizes that the climate has been changing on its own for eons.

Try the IPCC 2007 Physical Report.

A couple of thousand of the worlds climate scientists concur that man is indeed responsible for the majority of the modern changes in the global environment.

 

[L Gilbert]

One of the great problems obviously is that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have been cooling for 10 years. That is an overall observation but does not have an impact on peoples thoughts due to regional weather observations by the average person.
The positions of both advocates and deniers are so polarized that even hard evidence which supports either theory is immediately and savagely decried by the other side. An example Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling - Forbes

lmao

From the link, "global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago."

So if the IPCC says it looks like the globe is warming, the IPCC is full of BS and when the IPCC says it looks like the globe is cooling, the IPCC is suddenly not full of BS?
Freakin hilarious.

Ample evidence to suggest the planet's been cooling for a decade? Post it, please.

Polorized, as in extreme ends of the scale, with most folks in
the middle shaking their heads at both ends & their rhetoric.

Yep.

 

[Tonington]

Ample evidence to suggest the planet's been cooling for a decade? Post it, please.

They certainly can't be looking at ocean heat content.

 

[L Gilbert]

They certainly can't be looking at ocean heat content.

That's for sure.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

lmao

From the link, "global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago."

So if the IPCC says it looks like the globe is warming, the IPCC is full of BS and when the IPCC says it looks like the globe is cooling, the IPCC is suddenly not full of BS?
Freakin hilarious.

Ample evidence to suggest the planet's been cooling for a decade? Post it, please.

Yep.

Sponsored by the Heartland Institute says it all, it would be like saying come to the Phillip Morris conference on healthy smoking behaviour.

And what's extreme about being concerned about the serious physical implications of rapidly driving the global climate into a warmer state.

People who think it's no big deal obviously haven't looked into the issue or didn't really understand the implications. At the extreme it could possibly mean an Earth without complex life, that's based on the physical evidence. even if we don't get that far, with the many environmental stressors linked together by global climate change, the extreme position to take now is that the status quo is acceptable.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sponsored by the Heartland Institute says it all, it would be like saying come to the Phillip Morris conference on healthy smoking behaviour.

So it's full of crap if it doesn't agree with your opinion, but when it does agree with you, it's not full of crap? lol

And what's extreme about being concerned about the serious physical implications of rapidly driving the global climate into a warmer state.

I don't think you understand what I say, but are still pretty vocal about what I say anyway. That's extreme to me.
But, anyway, nothing and no-one has "rapidly driven global climate to a warmer state". All the evidence I have seen points to the probability that we have simply extended the warming part of the warming/cooling cycle that's been going on for thousands of millennia.

People who think it's no big deal obviously haven't looked into the issue or didn't really understand the implications.

And who would that be?

At the extreme it could possibly mean an Earth without complex life, that's based on the physical evidence.

The probability of that is ridiculously small.

even if we don't get that far, with the many environmental stressors linked together by global climate change, the extreme position to take now is that the status quo is acceptable.

Yeah, so?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

So it's full of crap if it doesn't agree with your opinion, but when it does agree with you, it's not full of crap? lol

My point is it's not science, it's public relations. They could by sheer accident be closer to the truth than the thousands of genuine researchers doing honest research, but then a room full of monkeys with typewriters could reproduce Shakespeare if given enought time, it still wouldn't make them brilliant playwrights. Why even consider what we know to be a scam as a viable alternative to the genuine science?

I don't think you understand what I say, but are still pretty vocal about what I say anyway. That's extreme to me.
But, anyway, nothing and no-one has "rapidly driven global climate to a warmer state". All the evidence I have seen points to the probability that we have simply extended the warming part of the warming/cooling cycle that's been going on for thousands of millennia.

Read the IPCC 2007 Pysical Report alone with the understanding it's almost certainly conservative in its predictions.

And who would that be?

Anyone who's not listening to what the science is saying.

The probability of that is ridiculously small.

What's your source?

The Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for the last 30 or so years thinks it's a real possibility, he calls it a dead certainty if we consume all available fossil fuels.

Yeah, so?

So I'm thinking wanting to live a life based on expediency is a really poor excuse for destroying the natural biological and physical systems that make life possible for so many species including our own.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Got any reputable links to back up each of the claims in the above paragraph?

Last I heard it was all still a theory -- the part where man is the sole cause of climate change that is. Any body with a brain realizes that the climate has been changing on its own for eons.

You have had all the links that are necessary several times. You have had links to the consensus of climate scientists. 98% of them agree. You have been shown that there are no credible opposing "views." You have had many links to various climate related events and statistics that all support the "theory."

And, if I recall correctly, Tonington explained a theory in science on one occasion. A theory is not an hypothesis or speculation. It is what is arrived at after evidence points to the conclusion.

All the evidence shows that climate change is real; it is just a few years away from becoming unavoidably catastrophic: and it is anthropogenic in origin - all of it.

Also, there has never been a similar warming in the history of the Planet and nothing close that has happened so quickly. The best evidence is that we now have just the number of years that can be counted on the fingers of a one armed man to begin serious mitigation attempts or what Rebel says about the future of life on the Planet could become a reality - not necessarily so but certainy possible..

In Canada's own little corner, summer ice in the Arctic has declined 70% in the last tirty years. That is, that the Planet's great temperature stabilizer has almost gone.

 

[skookumchuck]

lmao

From the link, "global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago."

So if the IPCC says it looks like the globe is warming, the IPCC is full of BS and when the IPCC says it looks like the globe is cooling, the IPCC is suddenly not full of BS?
Freakin hilarious.

Ample evidence to suggest the planet's been cooling for a decade? Post it, please.

Yep.

There are a ton of links as you know, depending on what position one takes.;-)
No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
Here is NASA trying to explain what THEY never mentioned until the media poked them
NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

I don't swing strongly either way but it's amusing to watch the circus.

 

[Praxius]

He's a theorist, the people who are actually out there observing the changes in the environment and modeling the future impacts are very concerned.

They're just as much "Theorists" as he is, because no matter how much these guys observe, study and play with models, they can not predict the future any more than anybody else..... they can only "Theorize" over what may or may not happen in the future based on their observations.

There are non-recoverable tipping points that once passed will completely alter the global environment and most likely make the viability of our species let alone that of modern civilization highly questionable.

I'm not sure what time it is that Lovelack is talking about, but if he's refering to what we're doing now as in any way acceptable in terms of preserving the conditions that allow a stable ecology then he's way off the mark.

Climate change is just one of many human activities driving many ecosystems to the brink of collapse, what it does do is join all the human generated stressors together on a global scale.

So you Theorize.... you can't state without a fact that any of the above is true.

If the planet can sprout life after being a lifeless rock spewing nothing by lava.... if the planet can survive getting smacked by an asteroid and bounce back, if the planet can survive a global Ice Age and bounce back.... if the Glacier Ice Core samples show that there have been many stages in the Earth's life where CO2 and global temperatures were just as high as today (and at some stages, higher than today) & bounce back down, and up again, and down again, etc.... long before humans came along or even hit the industrial revolution...... all of this puts massive doubts on your claims on just how fragile and weak our planet is.

Yes, we have an affect on the environment around us..... to a degree, but no where near the level of affect as some people would make us think.... otherwise if they were right & global warming was true and accurate with their findings, people in Halifax & Vancouver would be getting around by boat by now & PEI would be a mere sandbar..... more so.

Last I heard, we were supposed to have a completely ice free north pole a couple of years back..... hasn't happened yet.

 

[L Gilbert]

Why even consider what we know to be a scam as a viable alternative to the genuine science?

I have no idea but I can guess there are a variety of agendas causing people to ignore or obfuscate evidence.

Read the IPCC 2007 Pysical Report alone with the understanding it's almost certainly conservative in its predictions.

Why? I have no interest in what the IPCC says. What I prefer to read is evidence. So I go to the sources of data and data interpretation; like studies, models, etc.

Anyone who's not listening to what the science is saying.

Oh, good. For a sec there I thought that was a barbed comment directed at me.

What's your source?

You mean "sourceS", right? Pretty much the entire discipline of anthropology. It says that humans are one of, if not the most adaptable life forms on the planet. Biology, as well, and Darwin opened the can of worms with his theory that basically states the most adaptable species survive and those that aren't adaptable or are slow to adapt are pretty much doomed in conditions of adversity.

Then there's this stuff:

How to Survive the End of the Universe | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

Climate change: helping nature survive the human response - Turner - 2010 - Conservation Letters - Wiley Online Library

Coping With Climate Change: Which Societies Will Do Best? by Gaia Vince: Yale Environment 360

How Did Early Humans Survive Climate Change? - Sander van der Leeuw - YouTube

Impact of Global Warming on Future Human Life

Can Humans Survive? | LiveScience

Fun in the Face of Danger: Animal Intelligence in Rambunctious Climate Change - ABC News

The Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for the last 30 or so years thinks it's a real possibility, he calls it a dead certainty if we consume all available fossil fuels.

Lots of possibilities. I tend to think more in degrees of probability, though. It's quite possible that we may be wiped out by some e.t. species, but the probabilities are pretty miniscule. Or we could be wiped out by a superbug that originated right here, but the probabilities again are pretty small. The possibility that a plague of Terminators may come back from the future to wipe us out, but the probabilities are quite remote. There's a possibility that we could simply grow until we crowd ourselves off the planet, but the probabilities are diminutive.

So I'm thinking wanting to live a life based on expediency is a really poor excuse for destroying the natural biological and physical systems that make life possible for so many species including our own.

Ya think?

Perhaps if you broaden your reading to sources other than the doomsayers, you might change your outlook.

There are a ton of links as you know, depending on what position one takes.;-)
No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off

uhuh And the UN sure has it's shyte together. I guess those UN scientists don't read the data from dozens of sources like GISS, NOAA, etc. who are constantly pointing out stuff like this: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

I guess that those UN scientists ignore blatant evidence like this: State of the Climate | Global Hazards | May 2012

Here is NASA trying to explain what THEY never mentioned until the media poked them
NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

um, in case you missed it, there's a distinct upward trend in temperature anomaly from this graph that your NASA link shows: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/388674main_portal2Huge.jpg

I don't swing strongly either way but it's amusing to watch the circus.

Yep. There's the doomsayers on one end and the deniers on the other. It's human nature.

 

[Praxius]

Addition to my above post:

.....Last I heard, we were supposed to have a completely ice free north pole a couple of years back..... hasn't happened yet......

.... but maybe next year will be the lucky year.... just keep on guessing & when you end up wrong, you just push it back to the following year, or say a model didn't factor in something and push it back 30 years just to be safe.

30 years when most forget about the prediction so you can make another prediction and make it sound all new like nobody ever pulled that stunt before.

Kind of like how in the late 80's they were predicting how by 1996-97, New York would be under several metres of ocean due to the ice all melting..... then that got pushed back by 30 years around 2000 when Al Gore went on his idiotic campaign.... now we have more guys who support his crack pot theories saying there was a "Global Cooling" that just happened which pushes that prediction back further.

Funny how they never mentioned a "Global Cooling" in their original predictions.... I thought those computer models were supposed to be gospel. You'd think they could have accounted for this "Global Cooling" that postpones their predictions.

They fooled me once back in the 80's as a kid, fearing that I'd be a refugee from Nova Scotia because the province no longer existed.... they didn't fool me the second time around, and they're sure as hell not fooling me a third time by this postponement.

It's always a good thing to look out for the environment and to try not to pollute as much as we used to, more so for our own health sake.... and to help out the other creatures of the planet (& plant life, etc.) But drop the doomsday crap because nobody's buying it any more except for the gullible.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

They're just as much "Theorists" as he is, because no matter how much these guys observe, study and play with models, they can not predict the future any more than anybody else..... they can only "Theorize" over what may or may not happen in the future based on their observations.

Nonsense, they're not theorizing about things as difficult to define let alone prove as the Gaia hypothesis, they're out there measuring changes in the cryosphere, ocean temperature, circulation, salinity, expansion and large scale oscilations. They're monitoring increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases that are almost certainly the result of human activities like burning billions of tons of fossil fuels a year and land changes like deforestation and urbanization. They produce models based on well established physical principles and check their accuracy by inputting past conditions and see how well they reproduce events we know with high degrees of confidence already occured. This dark age of science you seem to believe in is a myth, science is a very powerful tool, the way we're communicating now would have appeared as magic not too many decades ago.

So you Theorize.... you can't state without a fact that any of the above is true.

Science builds on its past successes, it doesn't start from scratch, the science of climate change is built on a solid foundation of Physics, geology, climatology, biology, chemistry, etc... it's about as real as you get in this world.

If the planet can sprout life after being a lifeless rock spewing nothing by lava.... if the planet can survive getting smacked by an asteroid and bounce back, if the planet can survive a global Ice Age and bounce back.... if the Glacier Ice Core samples show that there have been many stages in the Earth's life where CO2 and global temperatures were just as high as today (and at some stages, higher than today) & bounce back down, and up again, and down again, etc.... long before humans came along or even hit the industrial revolution...... all of this puts massive doubts on your claims on just how fragile and weak our planet is.

for the vast bulk of the history of the planet most life has been primitive single celled organisms, modern multi-cellular life is a recent arrival and at times very vulnerable to severe changes in planetary conditions. In the Permian extinction almost all species of complex organisms went extinct, about 95%, it took almost 100 million years for the biosphere to recover to the same level of genetic diveristy. In the K-T boundary event about 75% of life went extinct and it took about 10 million years for a full recovery. Life is resiliant, not invulnerable, and your logic is a poor excuse for us driving another major extinction event that would most likely include us. The K-T boundary event is a stark warning about the dangers of climate change, as it was a rapid cooling then a rapid warming as a result of all the CO2 blasted into the atmosphere as the comet/asteroid plowed into the limestone seabed.

Yes, we have an affect on the environment around us..... to a degree, but no where near the level of affect as some people would make us think.... otherwise if they were right & global warming was true and accurate with their findings, people in Halifax & Vancouver would be getting around by boat by now & PEI would be a mere sandbar..... more so.

We are the main driver in global environmental change now, we emit far more new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than natural geological processes. Quantum Electrodynamics ensures that will have profound effects on the overall radiative balance of the atmosphere requiring significant climate change in response. It's not something that theorists are manufacturing, the theory of human generated climate change is solidly rooted in the most fundamental science available to us, it's only controversy is a product of creative minds doing PR for the fossil fuel sector.

Last I heard, we were supposed to have a completely ice free north pole a couple of years back..... hasn't happened yet.

Who were you talking to your hair stylist?

2007 was the first time in recorded history that the Arctic ocean was circumnavigable due to the declining ice pack. It has thinned by almost half in recent years and the extent of the much thicker and stable multi-years ice significantly reduced. Depending on local climatic conditions the already reduced Arctic ice pact could undergo a severe decline producing an ice free Arctic ocean probably within this decade.